Even the lead author of the IHRA has warned that it was a WORKING definition, not meant to be used for legal purposes or codified into law - and that he feared it would be misused to suppress political speech and academic freedom. He used the term McCarthy-like.
We have seen the results of applying this expanded definition. As the scholars and other assert, truthful political speech and accurate descriptions of Israel's actions are not anti-semitism.
Expanding the definition to include criticism of Israel not only unjustly harms Palestinians and human rights advocates, but is transparently racist. It is based on the belief that all Palestinians (and supporters) are inherently anti-semitic - merely for defending their rights and their lives - as if they don't have the same rights as everyone else.
It has apparently not occurred to Israel and the IHRA's defenders that it might - just might - be possible to feel compassion and outrage on behalf of Palestinians and be motivated to speak out based on something other than Jew hatred. And that lack of understanding betrays the racist undercurrent at the heart of this issue. And that is what is allowing and tolerating the ongoing slaughter in Gaza and the hunting down of pro-Palestinians on campuses.
= new reply since forum marked as read