Simon Wiesenthal Center

Policy and Definition Guide

The IHRA Definition, A Practical Framework for Recognizing Hate

The IHRA working definition gives institutions a shared way to examine anti-Jewish hostility. Its examples guide review, but context, evidence, applicable law, and due process still shape each decision.

  • Founded in 1977
  • Global advocacy, education, and research
  • Teaching the lessons of the Holocaust

What is the IHRA working definition?

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition describes antisemitism as a certain perception of Jews that may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Its examples help users examine anti-Jewish stereotypes, collective blame, Holocaust denial, discrimination, and some rhetoric about Israel.

IHRA calls the text a non-legally binding working definition. It does not create a law, disciplinary rule, or legal finding on its own. Each government, university, employer, court, or civic body decides whether to adopt it and what procedures and safeguards govern its use.

How SWC advances practical use of the IHRA framework

SWC works with governments, universities, courts, and international bodies on adoption and implementation. In May 2026, the Center organized the preliminary conference for Argentina's IHRA presidency, with delegates from government, the judiciary, academia, and civil society.

The Center's role goes beyond endorsement. Its work focuses on evidence-based institutional practice, education, consistent incident review, and safeguards that keep the framework tied to its purpose.

A working definition creates a shared reference point

Institutions may describe the same incident as harassment, bias, harmful speech, or discrimination. A shared reference point helps staff identify what needs review without deciding the outcome in advance. The definition supplies vocabulary; facts, law, institutional rules, and individual rights still control the response.

What the examples help institutions examine

The examples are not an automatic checklist. They point reviewers toward recurring patterns and questions about the target, intent, surrounding language, unequal treatment, and real-world effect. A reviewer should explain which example may apply and what context supports or limits the comparison.

  • Anti-Jewish stereotyping
  • Collective blame
  • Holocaust denial
  • Israel-related rhetoric
  • Discriminatory conduct

How to apply the framework with context

Start with the actual words or conduct, not a label offered by either side. Establish who spoke, who was targeted, what happened around the event, whether comparable conduct was treated differently, and where the IHRA framework gives way to another rule or legal standard.

  1. Identify the conduct
  2. Establish speaker and target
  3. Review surrounding facts
  4. Compare treatment
  5. Record the rationale

Criticism of Israel and the boundary question

The IHRA text states that criticism of Israel similar to criticism directed at any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Disagreement with an Israeli government, military action, political movement, or proposed policy does not become antisemitism merely because it is forceful or unpopular.

The examples become relevant when conduct targets Jews collectively, uses established anti-Jewish myths, assigns Jewish people responsibility for actions they did not take, or applies a discriminatory standard. Context may show ordinary political criticism, or a different message about Jews carried through political language.

Adoption and implementation are separate choices

Adoption accepts the definition as a useful reference. Implementation decides how it will be used in training, incident review, data collection, public communication, or policy. A sound plan sets the purpose, who may apply it, the evidence required, safeguards for affected parties, and a way to check consistency.

  • Purpose
  • Scope
  • Training
  • Procedure
  • Review

What implementation can support

Careful implementation can improve training, incident descriptions, data comparisons, and public explanations. It can also help educators show how older conspiracy ideas return in current language. The definition does not replace criminal law, civil-rights law, employment rules, academic standards, or constitutional protections.

Safeguards are part of responsible use

Institutions should train reviewers, preserve the conduct at issue, separate education from discipline, and avoid announcing conclusions before the facts are collected. Periodic review can reveal inconsistent outcomes or uses that drift beyond the stated purpose.

Continue Learning

Common Questions

Does the IHRA definition ban criticism of Israel?
No. The text says criticism comparable to that directed at any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. The words, conduct, target, and context still matter.
Is the IHRA definition legally binding?
Not by itself. IHRA describes it as non-legally binding. Legal or policy effect depends on the authority that adopts it and the rules governing that use.
Why include examples involving Israel?
Some hostility toward Jews appears as collective blame, conspiracy claims, or discriminatory conduct framed around Israel. The text also protects ordinary criticism from being treated as antisemitic by itself.
Can the definition determine whether a crime occurred?
No. It can help identify relevant features, but criminal liability is determined under the applicable law and evidentiary standard.
What is the difference between adoption and implementation?
Adoption accepts the framework as a reference. Implementation defines its role, who applies it, what evidence is reviewed, which procedures apply, and how outcomes are evaluated.

Get IHRA and Policy Updates

Follow SWC work on recognition, implementation, and institutional practice.

Receive Policy Updates