Jonathan Jacoby condemned the use of the IHRA definition as a “litmus test and an enforcement tool.” Instead of a singular standard, he said it should be treated as a reference in conjunction with other definitions, which specify that criticism and nonviolent political action toward the state of Israel — or Zionism more broadly — is not antisemitic. IHRA’s examples of antisemitism were relevant when they were drafted two decades ago, Jacoby said, but the context has changed.
“There were no students on campuses chanting ‘From the river to the sea’ back then,” he said. “If [the definition is] misused, then it actually creates divisions on campus. It suppresses open dialogue and academic freedom. None of those things protect students.”