RTP argues that the central issue surrounding the IHRA definition is the “defence of free expression”.
A spokesperson for RTP said: “The NHS must be a place grounded in clinical evidence, ethical debate, and human dignity – not political policing.”
Israel and antisemitism
Critics have pointed out that seven of the eleven examples attached to the IHRA definition refer specifically to Israel, which yet again presents the issue of conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism.
A few examples from the IHRA definition include:”Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis,” or “…claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”
The IHRA definition has also been heavily criticised by Ken Stern, the American Jewish Committee’s antisemitism expert, who led its drafting more than two decades ago.
Stern had previously urged the American Bar Association not to adopt the definition, as he claimed it has been used as “a blunt instrument to label anyone an antisemite”.
In 2017, Stern told the US Congress that there was a double standard present in the application of the IHRA definition because there are pro-Israel groups which freely deny the Palestine the right to exist as a self-determined state and Palestinian people.
If successful, the judicial review may extend well beyond the NHS, potentially affecting a range of other public institutions in the UK that have adopted the IHRA definition.
SANGHA KOMMUNE (SSR) 