Letters to the Editor: There’s nothing ‘controversial’ about this definition of antisemitism
To the editor: Michael Rothberg, a professor of English and comparative literature at UCLA, labels the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism “controversial” and “vague.” In reality, the IHRA definition has long been the global gold standard — controversial only among a small group of scholars. (“30 years ago, Grace Paley foresaw today’s clash over antisemitism,” Opinion, May 22)
The 35-nation organization, where I am now the Advisor and was the longtime chair of its antisemitism committee, adopted the definition in 2016 with consensus of all member countries, including the United States.
Since then, more than 40 countries, 30 American states, nearly 70 cities and counties, and more than 1,000 institutions, businesses and sports leagues have embraced it. The U.S. State Department has used the IHRA definition to track antisemitism for years.
While Rothberg claims that a congressional bill adopting the IHRA definition would make critics of Israel “even more vulnerable,” the definition is explicit: “Criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be antisemitic.”
Debates about terms are a luxury for times of peace. The future of our democracy requires that we understand all forms of antisemitism and emphasize unequivocally that it has no place in America.
Robert Williams, Los Angeles
The writer, executive director of the USC Shoah Foundation, is the UNESCO chair on antisemitism and holocaust research.
