On February 2, 2021, Fathom published a new eBook, In Defense of the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism, edited by Alan Johnson. This new eBook debunks four common myths regarding the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of anti-Semitism (the IHRA Definition): that the IHRA Definition prevents criticism of Israel by conflating such criticism with antisemitism, that England’s 2010 Equality Act makes the IHRA Definition redundant, that the IHRA Definition does not give us a precise definition of anti-Semitism, and that the IHRA Definition singles out the persecution of Jews and privileges one group over others. The eBook opens with an article debunking the myth that Kenneth Stern was the primary author of the Working Definition (see our recent blog entry on this topic). The authors, notably, are major figures in the international battle against anti-Semitism, and they have first-hand knowledge of the Working Definition’s formulation: Rabbi Andrew Baker, Director of International Jewish Affairs at the American Jewish Committee, Deidre Berger, the former Director of the AJC Berlin Ramer Institute for German-Jewish Relations, and Michael Whine, the former Government and International Affairs Director of the Community Security Trust, and UK Member of ECRI Council of Europe. The next essay refutes a letter posted by The Guardian claiming that the IHRA Definition undermines free expression. The essay’s author, Community Security Trust policy director Dave Rich, stresses that this canard is based upon a “misrepresentation of what the definition says and does, ‘unevidenced claims’ about its impact, and confusions about its legal status and power.” He rebuts the claim that the IHRA Definition focuses overly on Israel, observing that nine of the Definition’s eleven examples refer to “Jews” or the “Jewish people.” Rich also disputes the claim that criticism of Israel is suppressed by presenting examples of anti-Israel events at Universities across the world. The book continues with two essays by David Hirsh, author of Contemporary Left Antisemitism. The first rebuts the flawed logic of the “call to reject” the IHRA Working Definition. Hirsh observes that those who reject the IHRA Working Definition are not “concerned with the constructive work of describing and opposing antisemitism,” but focus mainly on “the purely negative work of rejecting efforts to do so.” Hirsh’s second article responds to philosopher David Feldman’s controversial article urging universities not to adopt the IHRA definition. Hirsh argues that accepting the IHRA Definition is important because it provides Jewish students with the assurance that their University takes the safety and well-being of its students seriously. This compilation also features work by philosopher Bernard Harrison and LDB Academic Advisory Board Member Lesley Klaff. Harrison and Klaff counter two common criticisms regarding the IHRA definition: that it is an unjust infringement on free speech and that it is impractical as a legal mechanism. Opponents allege that the definition unjustly blends political criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, thereby restricting a component of free speech. Klaff and Harrison contend that the Definition curbs “mendacious defamation” and not political discussion regarding Israel. They refute other criticisms of the Working Definition on the grounds that they imply, preposterously, that absolutely no criticism of Israel can be anti-Semitic, no matter how hostile or extreme. Klaff and barrister Derek Spitz critique David Feldman’s assertion that enacting the IHRA Definition is repetitious due to the 2010 Equality Act and university harassment rules. They explain that the Equality Act and University anti-harassment codes provide virtually no direction on what constitutes anti-Semitism. Next, philosopher Eve Garrard tackles criticism of the IHRA Definition subsequent to the publication of The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) report on anti-Semitism in the UK Labour Party. Ms. Garrard pushes back against claims that the IHRA Definition is not explicit enough and that it suppresses free speech. The last article, taken from the 2019 Fathom Report, Institutionally Antisemitic: Contemporary Left Antisemitism and the Crisis in the British Labour Party, is by Fathom editor Alan Johnson. Johnson expounds on contemporary and malicious forms of anti-Semitism. He establishes that the examples the IHRA Definition outlines for us are a necessary guide in helping us confront new manifestations of anti-Semitism. This collection illuminates the IHRA Definition’s importance and value. Johnson’s timing is good, as numerous countries, organizations, and schools have recently adopted the Working Definition. It was recently embraced, for example, by 51 major Jewish American organizations, as well as by the City of Paris and Sheffield Hallam University. The overwhelming majority of major Jewish American organizations now formally support it, as does the Biden administration, despite the opposition of a small number of outliers. The book is available for free download here. For further background on the IHRA Definition, see this recent Brandeis Center Blog entry by Toby Irenstein.