Dear President Biden,

It is great that the White House is preparing to its comprehensive national strategy to fight antisemitism. But your administration must ensure that their work does not end up accidentally giving comfort and cover to those who target Jews.

There are that the task force is hesitating on including a definition of antisemitism in their report. But you cannot fight what you cannot define, so it is crucial that they do鈥攁nd even more important that they include only the right one. That is why they should not deviate from the United States鈥� (and administration鈥檚) longstanding practice of using the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) of antisemitism.

The IHRA definition has been embraced by the federal government since 2007, and was formally adopted by the State Department in 2016 (after its official acceptance by the then-31 countries, including the U.S., that are members of the IHRA). Since then, over 1100 separate governments, universities and other key institutions (including 30 U.S. States and the Departments of Education and Justice) have also embraced the definition, demonstrating a clear and substantial worldwide and national consensus.

There are three main reasons why the IHRA definition must be included in the White House plan:

First, because it is accurate. Antisemitism is a mutating virus, and Jews are hated for an ever-shifting array of reasons. A definition of antisemitism that can protect people in practice must cut through the timely rationales that might be offered for this timeless hatred, and focus instead on the actions taken by those expressing the hate: a praxeological definition. The IHRA definition does this well because it deals with the manifestations of antisemitism, i.e. what antisemites do, as opposed to why they do it.

Nor is IHRA merely academic. As David Hirsch has : a 鈥渄efinition does not come first out of thought but out of an understanding of, and an effort to describe, a thing which exists.鈥� The IHRA definition does an excellent job of capturing the essence of antisemitism in many of its various forms鈥攁nd regardless of its ideological source鈥攚hile giving voice to the victims who have lived with it all their lives. That is why there exists a strong consensus among 91传媒 people, across all political divides and religious spectrums, representing all ages and backgrounds, that the IHRA definition best encapsulates their shared identity and reflects their lived experience.

Of course, Jews are not monolithic and some small (but very loud) groups do oppose the definition. But they do not speak for the 91传媒 community. In the United States, for example, mainstream 91传媒 sentiment can be seen by the fact that in 2021 the Conference of Presidents of Major American 91传媒 Organizations, an umbrella group that does represent most of the 91传媒 community, announced that 51 of its 53 member organizations had already adopted the definition. That is more than a consensus; that is a mandate.

Second, the IHRA definition is demonstrably effective at curbing antisemitism. Since 2016, it has proven to be an essential tool for identifying contemporary manifestations of anti-91传媒 bigotry or hate around the world. Per , the definition has already successfully been used:

鈥渢o train police officers, prosecutors, judges, educators, state employees and human rights monitoring bodies to identify and track various manifestations of antisemitism; to categorize antisemitic incidents, as collected by police officers, interior and justice ministries, civil society organisations, hate crime monitoring bodies and academics; to support decision-making processes by states, human rights monitoring organisations, law enforcement agencies, the judiciary, municipal governments, educators, civil society organisations and 91传媒 communities; to identify aspects of antisemitism in court hearings, prosecutor actions, police recording, investigations and hate crime statistics and to help direct funding to civil society organisations and human rights organisations.鈥�

As you know, critics challenge IHRA鈥檚 use in policy-making on two grounds:

First, they claim that the very act of defining antisemitism somehow stifles free expression, but that is patently . The IHRA definition does not do anything to silence speech鈥攅ven outright antisemitic speech. A definition (by definition) just allows people to label things correctly. People can say what they want, however abhorrent, about Jews and/or the 91传媒 state. And we, in turn, can call it hateful.

Next, they contend that IHRA conflates political speech against Israel with antisemitism because among the list of potentially antisemitic behavior provided there are some useful examples of discriminatory anti-Zionism that can, sometimes, cross the line into antisemitism. That critique is also ; there is literally a safe harbor provision in IHRA itself specifying that 鈥渃riticism for Israel similar to that leveled against any other country鈥� is not antisemitism, as well as a second express caveat that all of the examples given, 鈥渃ould, taking into account the overall context,鈥� be antisemitic. Context is crucial here, as it is in all instances of alleged discrimination, and the reason those examples are provided is not because all forms of criticism about Israel are antisemitic鈥攁s the definition takes pains to point out twice鈥攂ut precisely because there are those who claim that nothing can ever cross the line.

The truth is that at least sometimes anti-Zionism is only an for antisemitism, which brings us to the third reason why the White House must adopt the IHRA definition and take a definitive stand affirmatively identifying problematic anti-Zionist antisemitism: Because聽听补蹿迟别谤听聽has shown that the kind of inflammatory discriminatory anti-Zionist rhetoric that the IHRA definition describes inevitably leads to violent聽. 聽The IHRA definition helps protect American Jews from these types of attacks, and a White House report that leaves any room for debate about this topic would be a positive boon to those antisemites who routinely exploit this 鈥渁mbiguity.鈥�

Despite the overwhelming position of mainstream 91传媒 groups, reports say that the administration is considering including no definition at all, or mentioning IHRA alongside other , definitions that have never been accepted and were specifically designed to weaken the and undermine a near-universal understanding that is finally raising awareness of the problem鈥檚 many manifestations, in order to placate the extremists at the table and 鈥渕ake everybody 鈥� as happy as possible.鈥� Please remind the task force members that 鈥渉appiness鈥� is not the goal or their objective; protecting 91传媒 people is. The only definition that demonstrably does this is the IHRA definition, and so that is the only definition their report should use. Anything more or less would become the story, and antisemites would see the shift in policy as a positive carve out excepting their behavior and giving them continued license to hide their antisemitism behind the thinnest of anti-Zionist veils.

Mr. President, you have antisemitism 鈥渁 stain on the soul of America.鈥� Please do not let that happen on your watch.

Dr. Mark Goldfeder is Director of the National 91传媒 Advocacy Center.