Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context

117. To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade further to Parliamentary Question No. 190 of 20 May 2025, whether through the IHRA working definition of antisemitism the State has endorsed the position that criticism of Israel is only legitimate when it concerns actions of the government of Israel and that therefore endorsed that criticism of the State's constitutional arrangements and its overall legitimacy are antisemitic. [27241/25]

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I note that the Deputy’s question relates to the illustrative examples that accompany the IHRA’s non legally binding working definition of antisemitism.

On its public website setting out the definition and the illustrative examples, the IHRA notes that it provides a non-exhaustive list of what contemporary manifestations of antisemitism could include, while also noting that the overall context must be taken into account. While it is always legitimate to criticise the actions of any government, the broader context will determine whether wider criticism falls into the category of antisemitism under the definition, based on the guidance provided.

With regard to the Deputy’s specific queries, it is not for me, as Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, nor for my Department, to make such a determination. Whether or not the criticism referred to by the Deputy would meet the IHRA definition would be dependent on the context in which it was made.

I would reiterate that the purpose of the examples is to help guide the IHRA and its Member States in the work of addressing contemporary challenges related to the Holocaust, including by listing examples of what could constitute antisemitism, given that it can take many forms.