To the editor: Michael Rothberg, a professor of English and comparative literature at UCLA, calls the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of anti-Semitism “controversial” and “vague.” In reality, the IHRA definition has long been the global gold standard, controversial only among a small group of academics. (“30 years ago, Grace Paley foresaw the current confrontation over anti-Semitism,” Opinion, May 22)
The 35-nation organization, to which I am now an advisor and long chaired its anti-Semitism committee, adopted the definition in 2016 with the consensus of all member countries, including the United States.
Since then, more than 40 countries, 30 American states, almost 70 cities and counties and more than 1,000 institutions, companies and sports leagues have adopted it. The US State Department has used the IHRA definition to track anti-Semitism for years.
While Rothberg claims that a congressional bill adopting the IHRA definition would make critics of Israel “even more vulnerable,” the definition is explicit: “Criticism of Israel similar to that directed against any other country cannot be be anti-Semitic.”
Debates about conditions are a luxury in peacetime. The future of our democracy requires that we understand all forms of anti-Semitism and unequivocally emphasize that it has no place in the United States.
Robert Williams, Los Angeles
The writer, executive director of the USC Shoah Foundation, is the UNESCO chair of research on antisemitism and the Holocaust.
