The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) is a Canadian pro-Israel lobby group leading an effort to delegitimize this resolution, and by extension, to sow division within the NDP. CIJA recently sent a letter to NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, calling on him to oppose the resolution.

You might hear more from CIJA or other like-minded groups on social media or in the press in the coming weeks, talking about the need to oppose this resolution. Here are some of the common falsehoods or talking points used by the pro-Israel backers of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition of Antisemitism (IHRA WDA), and our responses to them.

CIJA, a highly conservative organization, should not be considered a reliable source to comment on the internal workings and political debates of the NDP.

CIJA’s Claim: We cannot fight antisemitism without being able to properly identify it.

Our Response: That vigorous criticism of Israel, including labelling Israel as racist, should be included in a “proper” definition of antisemitism is currently widely disputed. All instances of antisemitism are context-specific and must be evaluated as to whether or not anti-Jewish hatred is indeed a factor. Opposition to Zionism should not automatically be regarded as antisemitism. Even the U.S. Anti-Defamation League confirms that they are: “careful to not conflate general criticism of Israel or anti-Israel activism with antisemitism”.

CIJA’s Claim: There will be a motion brought to the floor by some members from the “fringe left”.

Our response: There is enormous grassroots support for Palestinian human rights in the NDP. The No IHRA resolution is not being brought forward by the “fringe left” but by a coalition including a former deputy leader of the party and other longtime NDP activists. The resolution has also been adopted or endorsed by nearly 50 riding associations, as well as by several labour unions representing hundreds of thousands of Canadians. More broadly, opposition to the IHRA definition has been expressed by over 600 Canadian academics, 15 university faculty associations and academic unions, the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Labour Congress, and the Canadian Federation of Students. Kenneth Stern, the main drafter of the IHRA WDA has declared that the definition is being “weaponized” by right wing Jewish groups to silence legitimate speech on Israel and Zionism.

CIJA’s Claim: A rejection of the IHRA definition of antisemitism is tantamount to telling the Jewish community that we cannot define our own oppression.

Our response: There is no consensus among Jews about the IHRA WDA or what constitutes antisemitism. Despite claims to the contrary, CIJA does not represent the entire Jewish community. Recent polls confirm that nearly half of all Jews in Canada have no affiliation with the institutional Jewish community and any claim by CIJA to be their representative must be regarded as a fabrication. Between 30% and 50% of Canadian Jews have a negative opinion of the Israel government while CIJA supports Israel uncritically. Forty-eight percent of Jewish Canadians (73% of NDP supporters) also believe that accusations of antisemitism are often used to silence legitimate criticism of Israel. Importantly, many major Jewish groups have issued statements rejecting the IHRA definition including: The New Israel Fund, J Street, Reconstructionist Judaism, Americans for Peace Now and the rabbinical human rights group T’ruah. Furthermore, it is one thing for a group to define its own oppression, it is quite another to lobby for others to adopt that definition, especially when said definition is having detrimental impacts on other groups that face oppression. Indeed, the weaponization of the IHRA definition is often laden with anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab and Islamophobic sentiment.

CIJA’s Claim: The IHRA definition is advisory, rather than legally binding. It encourages freedom of expression and welcomes legitimate criticism.

Our response: If the IHRA WDA is strictly advisory, why then did CIJA lobby to get the IHRA enshrined in law in Ontario in Bill 168? In fact, there are dozens of instances where the IHRA WDA has been used to shut down speech critical of Israel, mostly in places where it has not been adopted in law. As a result, the IHRA WDA is having a chilling effect, and influencing individuals and groups to unreasonably self-censor speech related to criticizing Israel for fear of being targeted as antisemitic.

CIJA’s Claim: “Dozens of jurisdictions in Canada” have adopted the IHRA WDA.

Our response: This is patently untrue. The IHRA WDA has been adopted in 8 suburban municipalities in Canada and by the Province of Ontario. Its adoption has been defeated or shelved in three of Canada’s major cities: Vancouver, Montreal and Calgary.

CIJA’s Claim: Over the past few years, we have witnessed a shocking and terrifying rise of antisemitic attacks internationally; domestically we are not immune.

Our response: Comparisons cannot be drawn between violent antisemitism in the U.S. and elsewhere to the situation in Canada. While any form of antisemitism is completely unacceptable, violent hate crime against Jews in Canada is minimal and any attempt to obscure that fact must be viewed as an attempt to distort the nature and severity of antisemitism in this country. Studies have found that 84% of hate crimes against Jews were categorized as non-violent, with the vast majority catalogued as “general mischief or property-related offences which targeted premises used for religious worship or identifiable as connected to the Jewish community” (often graffiti). What goes unmentioned is that the percentage of police-reported violent hate crimes targeting Jews is far lower than that for some other groups. While 16% of hate crimes against Jews were deemed “violent,” violent hate crimes against other groups are far higher with 40% of hate crimes targeting Blacks and 40% of those targeting Muslims classified as violent.

CIJA’s Claim: We do not wish to politicize this issue.

Our response: Weaponizing antisemitism to suppress criticism of Israel is indisputably political and CIJA is disingenuous to claim otherwise.