Solidarity with Palestine Does Not Equate to Antisemitism, Advocates Argue

Original article: Solidarizar con Palestina no es antisemitismo

In October, the U.S. Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism included Chile among the countries discussing the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition, ahead of a conference set for November.

Chile has not yet made a decision, and now is the time to highlight what is at stake.

The antisemitism framework proposed by the IHRA incorrectly conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism.

If this definition were imposed in Chilean law, it would effectively criminalize the movement for Palestinian rights.

We assert clearly that criticizing Israel or being anti-Zionist is not the same as being antisemitic, and indeed, many Jews around the world are anti-Zionist.

In the current political climate, the push to integrate this definition into Chile’s regulatory framework aims at censoring protests against the atrocities committed by Israel against the Palestinian people.

The definition comes with eleven examples, seven of which pertain to the State of Israel. In countries where it has been applied, these examples have been used to label marches, slogans, academic inquiries, and campaigns in solidarity with Palestine as antisemitic.

Organizations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Israeli group B’Tselem have described the situation of Palestinians as apartheid, and Amnesty was accused of antisemitism for doing so. If this can happen to one of the world’s most recognized human rights organizations, it can happen to any student, academic, or journalist.

In Chile, home to one of the largest Palestinian communities outside the Middle East, this could impact those expressing views on Palestine in universities, media, and public spaces, creating tension with the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 19 of our Constitution.

This is not just our view. Kenneth Stern, the primary author of the original definition, warns that its current usage instrumentalizes antisemitism and makes Jewish students less safe.

Over a hundred organizations have urged the United Nations not to adopt it. Brazil withdrew from the IHRA in 2025 after finding it used to target students, politicians, and intellectuals.

This confusion does not protect Jews either. Identifying ourselves with the policies of a state exposes us to hostility that we claim to combat.

Chile can address antisemitism without silencing anyone, by enforcing the Zamudio Law, documenting hate incidents, and strengthening education about the Holocaust and racism.

Therefore, we call on the government to publicly declare before the November conference that Chile will not adopt this definition, and urge Congress and universities not to incorporate it into laws or regulations.

As Jews committed to human rights, we recognize that antisemitism exists and must be combated resolutely. Attacks on synagogues, stereotypes about supposed Jewish power, or denial of the Holocaust are antisemitic and must be confronted unambiguously.

For this reason, we reject the use of its name to silence other voices.

Criticizing a state is not the same as hating a people. Defending Palestine is not an attack on Jews.

Diana Arón Jewish Group (AJDA)

Santiago, Chile, October 2026