Antisemitism what is it
Executive summary
Antisemitism is broadly defined as hostility, prejudice or discrimination against Jews, a form of hatred with roots in religious, racial and political currents that stretches back centuries and was named in the 19th century [1] [2]. In contemporary policy and public life, governments and civil-society bodies most often rely on working definitions—chief among them the IHRA working definition adopted by many states—to identify manifestations that range from stereotypes and conspiracy theories to Holocaust denial and certain delegitimizing rhetoric about Israel [3] [4].
1. What the words mean: prejudice, hostility and discrimination
Mainstream reference works and dictionaries characterize antisemitism as hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic or racial group, a concise framing used by Britannica and Merriam‑Webster that anchors public understanding and legal responses [2] [5]. Academic elaborations emphasize that antisemitism often treats Jews not as individuals but as a collective with incorrigible negative traits—an essential dynamic that allows stereotyping and collective blame to flourish [1].
2. How institutions define it: the IHRA and competing tools
Because there is no single universally binding legal definition, many governments and organizations use working definitions to operationalize antisemitism; the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition—adopted by its member states and promoted by the U.S. State Department—is the most widely used contemporary instrument and includes illustrative examples to guide identification of incidents [3] [6]. Jewish organizations and advocacy groups regularly point to the IHRA text and its examples—ranging from “classic” tropes to Holocaust denial and hostile tropes applied to Israel—to train law enforcement and inform policy [7] [4].
3. What antisemitism looks like today: tropes, denial and targeting
Contemporary manifestations include persistent conspiracy theories (Jews secretly controlling finance or media), age‑old religious accusations like blood libel, Holocaust denial and distortion, and rhetoric that holds Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel; these patterns are enumerated in IHRA examples and in analyses used by NGOs and police forces across Europe and North America [4] [8] [1]. U.S. monitoring and museum resources warn that antisemitic incidents—from verbal abuse to violent attacks—have risen in recent years, illustrating that these definitions map onto real and increasing harm [9].
4. The Israel question: where criticism and antisemitism collide
One of the most contested areas in contemporary definitions is speech about Israel: the IHRA examples state that denying Jewish self‑determination or applying double standards to Israel can be antisemitic, while also asserting that criticism of Israel similar to that leveled at other countries is not antisemitic—language defenders argue leaves room for free debate but critics say leaves room for ambiguous enforcement [4] [6]. Advocacy groups such as the ADL emphasize that anti‑Zionism can be antisemitic “in intent or effect” when it demonizes, delegitimizes or holds Jews collectively responsible, a stance that reflects one side of a highly polarized debate over boundaries between political critique and hate [10].
5. Law, policing and public policy: adoption and limits
European institutions, many national governments and police forces have adopted the IHRA working definition as a practical tool for training, incident recording and education, and the European Commission cites surveys showing its relevance to Jewish communities in Europe; proponents say adoption helps harmonize responses to hate while preserving freedom of expression by being non‑legally binding [6] [3]. At the same time, other scholars and groups referenced by civil society actors argue for complementary or alternative formulations—such as the Jerusalem Declaration or the Nexus Taskforce—because they fear that a single working definition can be misused to chill legitimate criticism of Israeli policy [11].
6. Why definitions matter and what reporting should watch for
Definitions turn amorphous prejudice into actionable categories for police, schools and platforms, but they carry political stakes: which definition is chosen affects what counts as a hate incident or a disciplinary offense, and that choice can reflect the agendas of state bodies, advocacy organizations or institutions seeking clear rules [3] [4]. Sources show a consensus that antisemitism includes both overt violence and subtler rhetorical forms—yet they also demonstrate ongoing debate about boundaries, especially around speech about Israel, underscoring that the term is both a matter of lived harm and of contested public definition [1] [10].