New York โ Rabbi Marc Schneier, president of the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding, has published a new op-ed in the New York Daily News marking International Holocaust Remembrance Day, warning that antisemitism is being deliberately redefined in ways that weaken efforts to confront it.
In the op-ed, Schneier argues that as antisemitism increases worldwide, its meaning is increasingly debated, diluted, and distorted. He writes that this trend makes the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism more important than ever.
โParticularly, as the virus of antisemitism spreads across the globe, the very meaning of the word antisemitism is being debated, diluted, and distorted,โ Schneier wrote.
Schneier contends that the IHRA definition provides clarity grounded in historical reality rather than political convenience. He describes it not as an abstract framework but as a practical tool shaped by Jewish experience.
โThis is precisely why the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism matters,โ he wrote. โIt is not a theoretical document; it is a shield born of blood, memory, and lived experience.โ
The IHRA definition, adopted or endorsed by dozens of governments and institutions worldwide, states that antisemitism can include denying the Jewish people the right to self-determination. Schneier emphasizes that this provision reflects historical patterns rather than modern political disputes.
According to Schneier, the IHRA itself represents a broad international consensus. He notes that the alliance is a coalition of governments that includes 45 countries and 37 U.S. states, established to preserve the memory of the Holocaust and ensure that its lessons are applied honestly.
โThe International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance itself is a global coalition of governments,โ Schneier wrote, describing its mandate as safeguarding historical truth while confronting contemporary manifestations of Jew hatred.
Schneier traces the development of the IHRA definition to decades of postwar scholarship and reflection. He argues that it emerged from a recognition that antisemitism did not end with the Holocaust but evolved into new forms that often disguise themselves as political critique.
โThe definition didnโt just come together overnight,โ he wrote. โRather, it emerged from decades of scholarship and post-war reckoning from scholars across the globe.โ
A central concern in the op-ed is what Schneier describes as a growing effort to separate Israel from Judaism in public discourse. He argues that this framing falsely presents Zionism as an optional political ideology rather than a core component of Jewish identity.
โToday, there is a concerted effort to bifurcate Israel from Judaism,โ Schneier wrote. โAn orchestration that argues Zionism is merely a political add-on that can be stripped away from the Jewish faith.โ
Schneier rejects that argument outright, calling it historically inaccurate and discriminatory. He emphasizes that the connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel predates modern politics by millennia.
โThis is a lie,โ he wrote. โZionism is not a political policy; it is at the core of Jewish identity, history, and peoplehood.โ
He points to Jewish liturgy and collective memory as evidence, noting that prayers for return to Zion have been recited continuously since the Jewish exile from the land of Israel nearly 2,000 years ago.
โThe return to Zion is the hallowed prayer we have recited for 2,000 years,โ Schneier wrote.
Schneier argues that demanding Jews renounce Israel or Zionism as a condition of social acceptance constitutes antisemitism. He frames such demands as a modern form of exclusion that mirrors older patterns of discrimination.
โTo suggest that a Jew renounce Israel to be accepted in civil society is antisemitism, pure and simple,โ he wrote.
The op-ed appears amid heightened global concern about antisemitism, including incidents tied to anti-Israel activism and the targeting of Jewish institutions. Schneierโs argument is directed at policymakers, educators, and civil society leaders who shape definitions used in law, education, and public debate.
By publishing on International Holocaust Remembrance Day, Schneier links contemporary challenges to historical memory. He argues that honoring Holocaust victims requires vigilance against new forms of antisemitism, particularly those that deny Jewish peoplehood or historical rights.
Schneier concludes by urging institutions and governments to uphold the IHRA definition as a necessary standard. He frames it as an essential safeguard for Jewish communities and a tool for ensuring that the lessons of the Holocaust are neither forgotten nor selectively applied.
For pro-Israel and Jewish audiences, Schneierโs message is clear: clarity in defining antisemitism is not a matter of politics but of historical truth, moral responsibility, and Jewish continuity.
