The UK government is facing legal challenge over its recommendation to schools to adopt the controversial IHRA definition of antisemitism. The group The Good Law Project initiated a lawsuit against the government on Monday.
The executive director of this group, Joe Mogham, expressed concern to Middle East Eye, noting that 'rules that conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism can contribute to the rise of antisemitism.' He stressed that while he hears the pain of British Jews at the forefront of the issue, he also fears that rules that unduly restrict freedom of criticism of Israel could become a cause of rising antisemitism.
The Department for Education's move to encourage schools to use the IHRA definition followed recommendations outlined in a recently published report by British education official and scholar David Bell on antisemitism in the country's schools and colleges.
Bell's report has been criticized for distorting findings, equating criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and conducting surveys among a small number of students from a narrow age range.
Criticism of the IHRA Definition
The debate surrounding the IHRA working definition of what constitutes antisemitism—originally created in 2004 as an optional tool for monitoring the phenomenon—primarily revolves around the fact that seven of its 11 'examples' include references to Israel.
A representative from the Jewish group Na’amod stated: 'Jewish students must feel safe in school, and antisemitism must be taken seriously. The IHRA definition does not do this.'
Kenneth Stern, the lead author of the definition, warned about the risk of it being used as a disciplinary or legal tool, arguing that it could limit legitimate political expression.
In 2018, human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson issued a legal opinion stating that the definition 'would likely suppress freedom of speech in practice,' as it encourages complaints against legitimate criticism of Israel.
The group Na’amod, which also opposes the imposition of the IHRA definition, told MEE: 'Its examples conflate criticism of Israel with hatred of Jews, and in universities it was predominantly used for censoring statements about Israel, not for protecting Jews.'
The group's representative added that in schools, teachers are forced to monitor children speaking about Gaza or the Nakba instead of fighting real anti-Jewish racism. Furthermore, it does not help Jewish students, many of whom do not link their Jewish identity to support for the State of Israel.
Bell's Review
Formally, the IHRA definition has been adopted by 47 countries. Its implementation in British schools was one of the 27 recommendations made in Bell's review. Following its publication on October 21, it was widely reported that 'three out of five' Jewish students faced antisemitism in English schools.
This figure was derived from a survey of 5,000 students, of whom 92 were Jewish aged 16 to 18. Of these, 70 responded to the question about personal experience or observation of antisemitism, with 29 people—41 percent, or about 'two out of five,' not 'three out of five'—reporting such an experience.
Bell's review itself acknowledged that this was a 'low sample size' and should be 'treated with caution.' It also found that 'anti-Jewish sentiment is generally less prevalent and more stable, whereas anti-Israel sentiment is more widespread and growing.'
Middle East Eye requested information from the Department for Education about plans to adopt the IHRA definition and whether the warning, including warnings from the definition's lead author, about the 'chilling effect' it might have on pro-Palestinian expression and criticism of Israel had been considered.
A Department for Education representative replied that 'antisemitism is a growing problem in society, including our schools and colleges, and Jewish children and staff should never face hatred or prejudice in education.' They continued: 'That is why we have accepted all 27 recommendations of Sir David Bell and are acting accordingly, including encouraging schools and colleges to adopt the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. The IHRA definition is adopted by 47 countries and countless governmental bodies and can provide a practical framework for teachers and students, and help clarify how to identify and combat antisemitism wherever it arises.'
Principle of Uniformity
Bell's review recommends separate measures to combat anti-Jewish hatred, distinct from existing policies on tackling racism and bullying. The National Union of Teachers criticized this step, warning of the risk of 'creating a hierarchy of racism.'
The Good Law Project and Na’amod informed MEE that the UK government should act consistently regarding racism and not apply special treatment to antisemitism. Joe Mogham stated: 'We really want the government to act consistently in combating hate speech.'
He added: 'Rules applied to one marginalized group must apply to other marginalized groups... We want consistency.'
A Na’amod representative noted: 'Antisemitism should not be taught as a unique case. It should be taught alongside racism and Islamophobia because these struggles are interconnected, and people fighting one are natural allies of those fighting others. Treating antisemitism as a special case with its own set of rules hinders this learning and separates the safety of Jews from the safety of everyone else.'
Gary Spedding, a political consultant specializing in Israel and Palestine issues, told MEE that he considers Bell's review 'careless, misleading, and inaccurate,' and that it is part of a 'systemic, legal, and institutional dismantling of any support for Palestine or any education or discussion of Palestinian history and existence within the UK education system.'
Influence of Pro-Israel Groups in UK Schools
Over the last decade, the Department for Education and UK government ministers have repeatedly warned school principals, teachers, and local authorities about how Palestine is covered in schools. These interventions often occur following lobbying by pro-Israel groups such as UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI), the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and the Community Security Trust (CST).
Gary Spedding told MEE: 'Palestine is treated as a partisan issue that requires school neutrality, but Zionism and Israel are not.'
In 2021, the BBC removed a seven-part series of educational videos about Palestine from its GCSE Bitesize platform—a free teaching resource—under pressure from UKLFI.
Former Conservative education ministers Gavin Williamson and Gillian Keegan formally instructed school principals to ensure 'political impartiality' when discussing Israel and Palestine in schools.
Spedding noted: 'Palestine is treated as a partisan issue requiring school neutrality, but Zionism and Israel are not. Meanwhile, the activities of pro-Israel organizations advocating interests operating in UK schools and having access to them do not receive equivalent scrutiny from the UK government or institutions.'
Numerous pro-Israel groups, including StandWithUs UK, United Jewish Israel Appeal, and JNF UK, provide educational resources, speakers, and trips to Israel for British students and teachers. StandWithUs claims to help students 'stand firm against antisemitism and anti-Zionism,' while JNF allows them to 'explore Israel' and offers 'seminars on Zionist history.'
Spedding explained that 'pro-Israel advocacy groups try to argue that their presence in the school system is necessary to counter rising antisemitism and anti-Zionism in schools.' However, education unions have pointed out that this imbalance causes teachers significant anxiety about covering topics related to Palestine and answering student questions on the matter, while traditional pro-Israel and Zionist viewpoints largely remain unchecked by the UK government.
Mogham reiterated: 'It is not only important to protect space for promoting vigorous criticism of Israel's terrible actions. We consider this necessary in a moral society.'
