A Double Standard: Why Can Antisemites Speak Freely, but Jews Can’t Call It Out?

Free speech is not just a right—it is a pillar of democracy. A society that values open discourse must ensure that no group is denied the ability to define and confront the hatred it faces. Yet, when it comes to antisemitism, some are determined to strip Jews of that right. Opponents of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition—whether from the left or the right—claim to defend free expression while, in reality, undermining it. The IHRA isn’t about choosing whose speech matters; it is about ensuring that democracy functions by allowing all voices, including Jewish voices, to be heard. Rejecting it doesn’t protect free speech—it weakens the ability to call out hate and erodes the very foundations of democratic society.

Critics of the IHRA claim they are protecting free speech, but in reality, they are imposing a double standard. They argue that people should have the right to say whatever they want about Jews—even if it is hateful, conspiratorial, or rooted in centuries of antisemitism. And legally, in many democratic societies, they do have that right. We don’t like it, and we hope people choose not to spread such hate, but we accept that some will.

What we cannot accept, however, is the hypocrisy of allowing people to spread antisemitism freely while denying Jews the ability to name it. If someone pushes Holocaust denial, we cannot legally stop them in the U.S.—but we can call them a Holocaust denier. If someone spreads conspiracies about Jews control the world, we cannot silence them—but we can say it is antisemitic. This is how free speech works: people have the right to speak, and others have the right to respond.

No other form of bigotry is treated this way. When someone expresses racism, society does not hesitate to call it racism. When someone spreads homophobia, we recognize it as such. But when Jews identify antisemitism, suddenly, the same people who champion free speech insist that we are being “too sensitive,” “stifling debate,” or “weaponizing” the term. The truth is, they don’t have a problem with speech being labeled—only with antisemitic speech being labeled.

Those who engage in antisemitic rhetoric want to be able to speak without being called what they are—antisemites. They demand the freedom to attack Jews, but they refuse to allow Jews the freedom to identify and challenge that hate. That is the double standard.

The IHRA definition does not stop people from speaking. It simply ensures that Jews have the same right as anyone else to recognize and define the hatred directed at them. Denying us that right is not a defense of free speech—it is an attempt to silence Jewish voices while giving antisemites a free pass.

Antisemitism

Democracy depends on the ability to define and confront threats—including antisemitism. The IHRA definition does just that, providing a clear and widely accepted framework for recognizing Jew-hatred in all its forms. It identifies how antisemitism manifests, from age-old conspiracy theories to the demonization of Israel that echoes historic anti-Jewish prejudice. Those who oppose the IHRA aren’t strengthening democracy; they are denying Jews the ability to speak out against hatred and hold those responsible accountable.

Antisemitism is real, and its impact is undeniable. The IHRA definition ensures that it is named, confronted, and not excused under the false pretense of protecting debate.

The IHRA definition has been adopted by dozens of governments, institutions, and civil society organizations because it provides a necessary tool for recognizing and addressing antisemitism. Rejecting it is not a defense of free speech—it is an attempt to erase Jewish voices from the democratic conversation.

Why Is There an Organized Effort to Deny Jews This Right?

At the Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM), we fight every day for the simple right to define and confront antisemitism worldwide. This is a basic request—one that should not be controversial. Yet, in many cases, we see an organized counter-campaign determined to deny us this right. And we have a hard time understanding why.

Why do some insist on keeping the right to attack Jews but refuse to grant us the right to defend ourselves? We do not ask for special treatment. We do not seek to silence anyone. We are simply saying: If you choose to spread antisemitism, we should be able to call it antisemitism.

Yet, across the political and ideological spectrum, this resistance is strikingly coordinated. We see it in radical Islamist groups that incite against Jews while rejecting any effort to define their rhetoric as antisemitic. We see it in progressive voices that claim to stand against hate but make an exception when the target is Jewish. And we see it in the extreme far-right, where age-old tropes about Jewish power, conspiracy, and control persist while those who call them out are dismissed as suppressing “free speech.”

This is not a coincidence—it is a pattern. In every extreme movement, there are those who want the ability to spread hatred against Jews without consequence, and they actively work to block any definition, like IHRA, that exposes their words for what they are. But why? What are they so afraid of? If their speech is not antisemitic, why are they fighting so hard to avoid scrutiny?

Our demand is simple: If people have the right to spread antisemitism, then we have the right to call it out. Denying us that right is not a defense of free speech—it is an attempt to ensure that Jew-hatred can flourish unchecked. That is why the fight for the IHRA definition is about more than policy. It is about defending the fundamental right of Jews to stand up for themselves in a world where too many want us silent.