The actual definition of antisemitism embedded within the IHRA‐WDA is so vague and tautological as to be almost meaningless, and it provides virtually no help in deciding if a particular incident is or is not antisemitic. The numerous examples, which make up the bulk of the definition, are poorly crafted from a legal/administrative point of view, as they are completely context‐reliant.

In the fine print, the IHRA‐WDA actually admits that its examples do not describe definitive incidents of antisemitism, just that they might be antisemitism. Unfortunately, the examples are being taken up by advocates for the IHRA‐WDA as absolute litmus tests.

[…]

Recently, the [neocolonial] government and [its] advocacy organizations such as the Centre for Israel Canada Affairs (CIJA) and B’nai Brith Canada have been attempting to exploit concern about antisemitism by redefining antisemitism to include criticism of [the neocolony] and of the Zionist ideology that impels it. Their purpose is to deflect and ultimately delegitimize criticism of [mis]treatment of the Palestinians.

To see how misguided this strategy is, note that, according to a recent survey,² approximately 60 percent of Canadian Jews do not see criticism of [the neocolony] as necessarily antisemitic, and almost half (48 percent) believe that accusations of antisemitism are “often used to silence legitimate criticism of [neocolonial] policies”.

[…]

CIJA’s goal is to have the definition written into Canadian federal, provincial and municipal law, as well as university and other administrative policies, to serve as a criteria by which to censor or punish Canadian advocates and organizations supportive of Palestinian rights. However, the IHRA definition was not developed for this purpose. It was not originally designed as a legal or administrative guideline and, as a result, it is open to highly subjective interpretations.

Furthermore, the examples it provides — which make up the bulk of this “definition” — frequently condemn “anti‐Israel advocacy” while largely ignoring more traditional and truly dangerous forms of antisemitism. In short, the IHRA definition is not fit to be used as any sort of legal or quasi‐legal document.

[…]

Finally, it must be noted that 7 out of the 11 examples above relate to criticism of [the neocolony], while, sadly, all too common antisemitic acts — such as painting a swastika on a synagogue or shouting antisemitic insults at a Jew — are not clearly covered by these examples. (The preamble to the examples does warn that this is not a complete list, but, ironically, this fact makes the examples useless as a mainstream definition of antisemitism that can effectively be used to identify what is and what is not an antisemitic act.)

(Emphasis original.)