I have reason to believe that Andrea Deutsch, a candidate in the 148th District Democratic primary, supports the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism — a standard adopted by 38 states and both recent presidential administrations. I reached out to her for confirmation, but have not received a response.
I will update this post if and when she replies.
What Is the IHRA Definition?
To date, 38 U.S. states — including New York but not Pennsylvania — have adopted or endorsed it. Pennsylvania has not adopted the definition, though the effort is active in Harrisburg: Senate Bill 127, which would embed the IHRA definition into the state’s Holocaust education requirements, passed out of the Senate Education Committee on a 6–5 vote in May 2025 and is pending further action in the General Assembly.
The core definition reads:
“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.”
The definition is accompanied by 11 contemporary examples that, according to the IHRA, “may serve as illustrations” of how antisemitism manifests. The examples are described as non-exhaustive, and the IHRA notes that all determinations should take into account the overall context.
The 11 Contemporary Examples
Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
- Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
- Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective, such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government, or other societal institutions.
- Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
- Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
- Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
- Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
- Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
- Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
- Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
A Contested Definition: Why Some Prominent Democrats Reject It
While the IHRA definition has broad mainstream support — including from the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, and both the Trump and Biden administrations — it has drawn sustained opposition from a significant faction of the Democratic Party. The objections fall into two main categories: free speech concerns and the definition’s treatment of Israel-related criticism.
The central controversy involves several of the 11 examples, particularly those that could classify certain critiques of Israeli government policy as antisemitic — including examples 7, 8, 10, and 11 above. Critics argue these examples blur the line between hatred of Jewish people and political criticism of a nation-state.
Here are some of the most prominent Democrats who have publicly opposed or distanced themselves from the IHRA definition, and their stated reasons:
Nadler, who describes himself as a “deeply committed Zionist,” has been the most prominent Democratic lawmaker to oppose codifying the IHRA definition into law. When the House passed the Antisemitism Awareness Act in May 2024 — which would have required the Department of Education to use the IHRA definition in discrimination investigations — Nadler voted against it, calling the bill “misguided” and warning that it “threatens to chill constitutionally protected speech.” He argued that “speech that is critical of Israel — alone — does not constitute unlawful discrimination,” and that there are three legitimate definitions of antisemitism (IHRA, Nexus, and the Jerusalem Declaration), none of which should be exclusively enshrined in law. Nadler also noted that even the definition’s original author opposed its legal codification.
“By effectively codifying [the IHRA definition and its examples] into Title VI, this bill threatens to chill constitutionally protected speech. Speech that is critical of Israel — alone — does not constitute unlawful discrimination.”
— Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), floor statement, May 2024
Sanders, who lost family members in the Holocaust, strongly condemns antisemitism but has opposed legislative efforts to codify the IHRA definition. When the Senate HELP Committee was set to vote on the Antisemitism Awareness Act, Democratic members — including Sanders as ranking member — blocked the vote. Sanders argued that lawmakers must defend the First Amendment and the right to peacefully protest, and warned against conflating criticism of Israeli government policy with antisemitism. He has said that equating criticism of Israel’s actions with antisemitism is itself an abuse of the concept.
Tlaib voted against a 2024 House resolution endorsing the State Department’s global antisemitism guidelines — which recommended adoption of the IHRA definition — and issued a formal statement explaining her position. She said the IHRA definition “dangerously conflates criticism of the state of Israel with antisemitism” and cited concerns shared by Jewish Voice for Peace, Bend the Arc, B’Tselem, Amnesty International, and the ACLU that it would be used to “stifle dissent and chill free speech, especially Palestinian human rights advocacy.” Tlaib was one of only three Democrats to vote against that resolution.
Omar also voted against the 2024 resolution endorsing IHRA global guidelines, aligning with Tlaib’s position that the definition conflates political criticism of Israel with antisemitism. She has consistently opposed legislative efforts to codify the definition, arguing it would be weaponized against pro-Palestinian speech and protest.
AOC’s position has been somewhat more complicated. She voted for the 2024 nonbinding resolution endorsing the global guidelines (drawing condemnation from progressive allies), but voted against the Antisemitism Awareness Act that would have given the IHRA definition legal force. She has since committed to opposing the IHRA definition outright, stating her opposition on a Democratic Socialists of America call in April 2026. Like Nadler, her objection centers on the Israel-related examples and the potential for the definition to suppress speech protected under the First Amendment.