Definition silencing debate

June 30, 2026

The lead drafter of the IHRA definition, Kenneth Stern, has been a damning critic of how it has been used, saying it is being “weaponised” to suppress free speech in relation to criticism of Israel.

Stern says that the definition was drafted in 2004 to help European data collectors standardise the tracking of antisemitic incidents. It was never intended to be used as a disciplinary tool or to label individuals as antisemites.

He has publicly rejected its formal adoption by governments and universities, arguing this goes far beyond its original purpose. He notes that when a definition receives official approval, “it acts like a law,” even if it’s not legally binding. A central part of his criticism is that the definition is being used to silence debate, especially on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He argues that this approach is counterproductive and can be harmful in that it stifles debate. He believes using the definition to suppress speech is a way to avoid the complicated work of addressing hate. It has been used without compunction by the genocidal state of Israel to stifle criticism of that genocide. It must be erased from the rules in any civilized society.