The IHRA definition is an invaluable educational tool for understanding how Jews experience antisemitism today. The opposition picked up steam last week when a group of nearly 30 distinguished law faculty-including two former university presidents and many longtime ABA members- called on the organization to restore the IHRA definition to the resolution:Į regret that Resolution 514 as adopted and revised omits an internationally-agreed upon standard and urge the ABA to reconsider its stance on this matter. The Jewish Federations of North America tweeted applause for the ABA’s consideration of the resolution condemning antisemitism, but stated it is disappointed the ABA didn’t include the IHRA definition, “a tool we support that outlines modern manifestations of antisemitism.” “Even a cursory reading of the definition would disprove that.” “Some ABA members claimed the IHRA definition inhibits free speech, because it considers all criticism of Israel antisemitic. But it added it is “disappointed the resolution omits the widely-recognized definition of antisemitism from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which provides clear guidance on what is antisemitism and what it is not.”

The American Jewish Committee stated its appreciation for the ABA condemnation of antisemitism amid “alarming” levels of antisemitism.

When it met in February, the ABA adopted a revised version of the resolution that eliminated the well-regarded IHRA definition.Īmerican Jewish advocacy groups responded to the ABA’s backpedaling with a lukewarm “thanks, but no thanks.” As reported by the Jewish News Syndicate (JNS): That is exactly what happened, The Washington Examiner later reported. Would the ABA cave, we wondered, the way Harvard Dean Elmendorf did?

Viber old version