I tend to stay out of IHRA debates, as its working definition of antisemitism has been turned into a shibboleth by both “sides” — claimed as essential protection against antisemitism by some advocates, and a nefarious plot to defend Israel by detractors; in fact it’s neither.

I think the WD has good intentions, and it’s a useful contribution to a discussion that can help broaden and deepen understanding of antisemitism. It’s not the document I’d write personally, but I think it has value. I supported the Labour Party endorsing it.

What I’m against is using something explicitly intended to be “non-legally binding” as a “statutory” document to police speech. Potential negative consequences of endorsement of the WD stem far more from attempts to do that than anything actually written in the WD itself, IMO.

I think that’s what’s now happening in academia. Gavin Williamson is using a drive for endorsement of the WD as part of a wider government-led offensive against free and critical speech, especially in academia. Context matters. That offensive should be resisted.

On the infamous “racist endeavour” example, it’s not true that the WD prevents calling Israel, or its policies, racist, isn’t true. Read it. It says claiming “a” [not “the”] state of Israel is a racist endeavour” *could*, “taking into account the overall context”, be antisemitic.