How do New York Jewish community organizations define antisemitism in the context of criticism of Israel?

1. How mainstream New York Jewish groups frame the problem: IHRA as the yardstick

Major Jewish organizations and New York City officials have adopted or cited the IHRA working definition as their primary tool for identifying antisemitic speech and conduct tied to Israel, explicitly noting that manifestations aimed at the state of Israel “conceived as a Jewish collectivity” can be antisemitic and listing examples such as denying Jewish self‑determination or applying double standards ^{[2] [6] [7]}. New York City’s executive actions and statements from Jewish institutional leaders framed the IHRA adoption as necessary to protect Jewish New Yorkers from a documented surge in anti‑Jewish hate crimes and to distinguish hostile rhetoric about Jews from policy critique ^[7].

2. What IHRA says — and the practical line it draws between criticism and antisemitism

The IHRA core text defines antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews” and supplies illustrative examples linking some forms of anti‑Zionism and demonization of Israel to antisemitism, while also saying “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic” ^{[1] [2]}. In practice, many organizations use the IHRA examples to flag speech that appears to hold Jews collectively responsible for Israel’s actions, recycle antisemitic tropes in relation to Israel, or deny Israel’s right to exist — conduct those organizations say crosses from political critique into prejudice ^{[2] [3]}.

3. Dissent within the Jewish world: alternative definitions and political splits

A significant strand of New York Jewish life rejects equating anti‑Zionism categorically with antisemitism; groups like Jewish Voice for Peace and many left‑leaning Jewish scholars have endorsed alternative frameworks (e.g., the Jerusalem Declaration or Nexus) that more sharply separate criticism of Israeli policy from hatred of Jews ^{[1] [8]}. These critics argue the IHRA examples can be—and have been—deployed to chill campus protest, label human‑rights work as bigotry, or shield Israeli policy from scrutiny; scholars have also written that IHRA’s examples sometimes interpolate Jewish identity with uncritical support for Israeli state actions ^{[4] [5]}.

4. Political uses and charges of “weaponization”

Beyond academic debate, critics warn that defining criticism of Israel as antisemitism can become a political tool: commentators and scholars have accused pro‑Israel institutions of “weaponizing” antisemitism to blunt pressure on Israeli policy or to politically target the left, while defenders say robust definitions are essential to protect Jews from a rising tide of hate that often comes wrapped as anti‑Zionism ^{[8] [9]}. New York officials and some Jewish organizations maintain the IHRA framework helps law enforcement and institutions identify when rhetoric about Israel is a vehicle for antisemitic harm ^{[7] [6]}.

5. Practical consequences and unresolved tensions

Adoption of IHRA‑style language has real effects in New York: it shapes municipal guidance, campus disciplinary debates, and how Jewish agencies document hate incidents, but it has not silenced disagreement about where to draw the line between protected speech and bigotry ^{[7] [3]}. Reporting and scholarship show both that many Jewish organizations see the IHRA examples as a necessary diagnostic tool, and that other Jewish actors fear those examples can suppress dissent and conflate political positions with racialized hatred — a debate that remains unresolved in New York’s communal institutions ^{[3] [4] [5]}.