Taoiseach endorses controversial antisemitism definition

The State’s newly adopted definition of antisemitism has been widely criticised by both international and domestic human rights groups for its use as a tool to silence pro-Palestinian voices.

In January 2025, Micheál Martin TD, then Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, endorsed the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) controversial definition of antisemitism.

“Ireland is committed to countering the scourge of racism and hatred and to promoting the values of equality, inclusiveness and the full respect of human rights. Combatting antisemitism is an increasingly important and visible part of this work. I have been deeply concerned at the current trend of a global rise in antisemitism, both online and offline. The Government takes this issue seriously and we will continue to tackle all forms of discrimination. I believe the step taken today will be an important contribution to these efforts. We will also continue our close relationship with the Jewish community in Ireland and ensure that their concerns are heard,” Martin said at the time.

Ireland became one of the 47 countries to have adopted the non-legally binding definition, alongside 26 EU member states, the UK, and the US.

The adoption has not been widely covered by the media. Political magazine The Phoenix wrote that the decision was undemocratic as the government had “no electoral mandate for this initiative”.

Since the IHRA adopted the definition in 2016, it has been criticised by academics, legal scholars, and human rights groups.

The definition is highly controversial because of its conflation of criticism of Israel and antisemitism, which has allowed it to be used to silence pro-Palestinian advocacy.

The IHRA definition states: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

It also includes a non-exhaustive list of 11 examples of antisemitism, of which seven relate to Israel, such as: “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.”

The language used throughout these examples is sufficiently vague so that condemnation of Israel’s regime and its occupation of Palestine could be deemed antisemitic.

Former UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn MP was accused of antisemitism by members of his party when Labour adopted a modified version of the IHRA definition in 2018.

This version did not edit the text of the definition but omitted four examples of antisemitism which related to Israel and included a statement that the definition should not infringe on freedom of expression.

The author of the definition has criticised the adoption of the definition by governments and organisations.

Ken Stern, the definition’s lead drafter, has repeatedly expressed concerns about how it is being used as a tool to silence criticism of Israeli policy. In 2022, he said that “the major use of the definition has been to go after pro-Palestinian speech”.

Criticism of the definition is global. In April 2023, over 100 organisations, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the American Civil Liberties Union wrote to the United Nations urging against the definition’s adoption.

It is therefore unsurprising that the Taoiseach’s decision has been widely condemned by Irish human rights groups.

Amnesty Ireland called it “deeply regrettable” because they believe the definition has been used to “undermine freedom of expression and suppress criticism of Israeli authorities’ human rights violations”.

As well as this, in May 2025, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission sent a letter to the Taoiseach criticising his decision.

“Antisemitism is a most pernicious form of racism, which must be tackled and challenged at every opportunity. It is apparent that the IHRA definition – which, in Ken Stern’s words, is now being misused as ‘a blunt instrument to label anyone an antisemite’ – is not helping in this endeavour.”