On February 22, 2021, the Louis D. Brandeis Center For Human Rights Under Law (LDB) joined the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights (Raoul Wallenberg Centre) and the Kantor Center for the Study of Contemporary European Jewry at Tel-Aviv University (the Kantor Center) for an insightful discussion about the history, impact, challenges and best practices of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism (the IHRA Definition). LDB President, Alyza Lewin, moderated the event, which featured remarks from a panel of distinguished experts in the field of anti-Semitism studies: Irwin Cotler, Chair of the Raoul Wallenberg Centre, former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and international human rights lawyer; Professor Dina Porat, Head of the Kantor Center and Chief Historian of Yad Vashem; and Kenneth Marcus, LDB Founder and Chairman and former Assistant Secretary of Civil Rights at the U.S. Education Department. After the panel, Jacob Dallal, Director of Academic Affairs at Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs and Public Diplomacy presented brief remarks. Professor Irwin Cotler provided a thorough overview of the historical context that served as the impetus for the creation of the IHRA Definition and continues to justify the necessity of the Definition today. In doing so, he demonstrated that the Definition was the product of a lengthy democratic process involving numerous parliamentarians, statesmen, scholars, human rights lawyers, and nongovernmental organizations. The global resurgence and intensification of anti-Semitism following the 2001 World Conference against Racism in Durban, South Africa created an urgent need for a comprehensive and practical definition of anti-Semitism. The Durban Conference was a significant turning point; a conference that was intended to address racism was hijacked by anti-Semites, who turned it into a referendum on the racism of the Jewish people and identified Israel as the world’s paramount human rights abuser. Cotler stressed the importance of the IHRA Definition after the Durban Conference shaped a new anti-Semitic discourse pertaining to Israel and the Jewish people. Cotler concluded by reminding the audience that Israel and the Jewish people are not above the law or deserving of special treatment because of the Holocaust; rather history demands that the standards for international human rights and humanitarian law are applied equally to all countries, including Israel. Professor Dina Porat discussed the recently accelerated and widespread adoption of the IHRA Definition. Porat downplayed the significance of opposition to the Definition by explaining that increased adoption of the Definition inevitably invites increased criticism. Porat highlighted Cotler’s remarks about the Durban Conference by noting that since the Conference took place in 2001, there has been a significant increase in violence towards Jews worldwide. Porat also emphasized the effectiveness of the IHRA Definition. She explained that one of the most notable and useful features of the Definition is that it is a “working definition,” therefore one can, quite literally, work with it and use it in different contexts, such as police training and even soft law interpretation. LDB Founder and Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus applauded the widespread adoption of the IHRA Definition, which shows that it is on its way to becoming a global standard. Marcus noted that although journalists have referred to the Definition as controversial, in fact there is overwhelming agreement among the nearly thirty nations, hundreds of other entities, many Jewish leaders, and over fifty major Jewish American organizations who support the IHRA Definition. Marcus emphasized that the IHRA Definition bolsters freedom of speech by providing a tool to address the increasingly widespread suppression of Jewish and pro-Israel expression. He also explained that the Definition does not prohibit anti-Semitic speech or conduct, but rather is a useful tool for determining when conduct is motivated by anti-Semitic bias. Marcus explained that that when it used in this way, the IHRA Definition has particular utility on college campuses, where universities have an obligation under federal civil rights laws to protect Jewish students from discriminatory conduct motivated by anti-Semitism. Jacob Dallal concluded the program by calling for more recognition of the educational value and usefulness of the IHRA Definition and urging social media companies to integrate the Definition into their community standards and practices for monitoring online anti-Semitism. To watch the video, please click here.