We need to be plain about what antisemitism is. Sir David Bell’s review into antisemitism in schools and colleges spotlights the scale of the problem we face. 51% of Jewish teachers surveyed experienced antisemitism in school in the past year. One in five 16-19 year olds surveyed witnessed or experienced antisemitism, the number rising to three in five for Jewish students. 40% of school teachers surveyed who teach about the Holocaust reported encountering antisemitism in these lessons. Fixing this requires action on a range of fronts. But it starts with defining antisemitism clearly, in a usable way. That is why the government is expecting schools and colleges to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism. The working definition must be adopted in a way that means that schools and colleges can meet their legal duties, including on equality and free speech. This is the first of the 27 recommendations from Sir David’s review. We have accepted his review in its entirety, and we will start to implement it immediately. Despite the report being published only days ago, I have already seen misleading suggestions that adopting the IHRA definition will prevent discussion of Israel or suppress legitimate political debate. That is simply not true. The IHRA definition has been adopted by 47 countries, and countless public bodies. The working definition spotlights the insidious and often subtle form that antisemitism can take, and provides a practical framework that helps teachers and pupils spot and tackle it. It opens up, rather than shuts down, essential conversations. It also explicitly states that criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. The examples included in the definition cover denial of the Holocaust, making stereotypical allegations about the power of Jews as a collective, and questioning the loyalty of Jews to their own nation. It also includes an example worth defending: “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.” Throughout history, Jewish people have been denied agency stemming from antisemitic ideas that they are an untrustworthy or malicious minority. The founding of the State of Israel, following the Holocaust and endorsed by the UN came following extreme global persecution. Those who find this example uncomfortable should reflect on how denying a different minority group their right to self-determination would be experienced by that group. Worse still, what are the ideas that would lead one to label this right to self-determination itself as “racist”? This example in the working definition in no way limits criticism of the State of Israel. The UK government itself has criticised recent action by the Israeli government in Gaza, and it is perfectly possible to do this without denying Jewish people’s right to self-determination. The claim that the IHRA definition makes criticism of Israel impossible is a lazy misrepresentation. I know that the conversations teachers are navigating in light of political events in the Middle East and with the backdrop of hate spread online are not easy. I was a citizenship teacher myself and I have had to navigate these very same conversations. The definition will give teachers the confidence to protect legitimate political expression and tackle antisemitic behaviour. Education is the most powerful disinfectant against the disease of antisemitism. Acting on Sir David’s review is a task for all of us. And it starts with being plain about what antisemitism is. Only then can we work together to root it out.
Ken Jones 26 October 2026 Josh MacAlister maintains that the IHRA text ‘opens up, rather than shuts down, essential conversations’. Amnesty International, by contrast, says that the IHRA ‘risks making teachers and pupils afraid to speak’ and has been used to ‘stifle debate’. Amnesty’s claims are plausible. The Bingham Centre’s Commission on UK Counter-Terrorism reported in 2025 that, feeling the pressure of the Prevent Duty, ‘students were reluctant to debate difficult views’. There was a risk of ‘suppressing legitimate discussion and undermining the development of critical thinking skills.’ Earlier this year, the Office for Students commissioned YouGov to explore students’ views on free speech in universities. YouGov found that the ‘Israel-Palestine conflict’ was frequently mentioned as a topic participants held back from discussing, ‘because of a fear of accusations of antisemitism or disciplinary action’. In 2021 the Balfour Project, inquiring specifically into the effects of the IHRA definition on university students, noted the ‘implicit coercion’ felt by students to avoid ‘certain topics’ like Israel/Palestine’. The arrival of the IHRA in schools and colleges will reinforce this pattern. Stephen Sedley, former Lord Justice of Appeal, has described its definition of antisemitism as ‘indefinite’, ‘clumsy’, ‘open-ended’ and ‘slanted’. It casts the net of ‘antisemitism’ more widely than it should. Contrary to Mr MacAlister’s assertion about its clarity it provides only a large and unreliable map of possibilities and potential examples, purporting to show where ‘antisemitism’ might lie. Because of its intrinsic imprecision, the meaning of the IHRA document is supplied not just by the text itself, but by the interpretations of readers, particularly readers like Mr MacAlister, who are in a position to influence its implementation. Mr MacAlister seems keen to do this. He throws his political weight behind some of the IHRA examples, leaving little room for doubt that in his view, as education minister, criticism of Israel as a state is racist. This is a signal that students and teachers will feel they cannot afford to ignore; they are unlikely to take the risk of straying into territory that is classifiably ‘antisemitic’. Antisemitism must be addressed, and institutions should seek to prevent it. A definition as flawed as that of the IHRA is not a usable means of doing this. As the polling organisation More in Common has shown, students and young people, more than any other section of British society, are alert to the war crimes and ethnic cleansing which our Foreign Secretary has recently recognised have been inflicted on Palestinians by Israel. Creating a climate that discourages discussion of these horrific experiences is neither an effective measure against antisemitism, nor an adequate response to one of the greatest ethical and political issues of our time.