The British Medical Association (BMA) approved a motion against the use of the IHRA’s definition of antisemitism on Tuesday, saying it could have "a chilling effect" on free speech in healthcare settings, meaning that doctors "cannot express ethical concerns" on Israel’s war in the Gaza Strip and its treatment of Palestinians .
During its annual press conference, the UK doctors’ trade union expressed "grave concern" about the IHRA definition, and said it would urge the government and NHS England to repeal its mandatory adoption across the NHS until proper safeguards are put in place to "protect free speech". The IHRA definition of antisemitism was first formulated in 2016. It states that "antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews" but goes on to effectively conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, saying that "manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity".
The definition has been subjected to intense criticism over the years, with civil society groups arguing that it can be used to stifle free expression about what is happening to Palestinians and saying that the definition weaponises antisemitism. This has become particularly relevant amid Israel's ongoing wars on the Gaza Strip and Lebanon and its increasingly brutal occupation of the West Bank.
The IHRA’s working definition was adopted by the NHS last year following a request from UK Health Secretary Wes Streeting, triggering concern among civil society groups that this could be used to silence staff and undermine the protections granted by Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which protect freedom of expression rights.
In a statement to The New Arab , a BMA spokesperson said: "Doctors in the UK and around the world have witnessed in horror the humanitarian crisis that has unfolded during the Middle East conflict, with the devastating loss of civilian life and in particular, the attacks on healthcare workers and healthcare facilities."
"Doctors must be able to legitimately challenge the actions of states and armed forces, especially when healthcare is under threat, without being unfairly accused of any kind of discrimination, or threatened with disciplinary action," the spokesperson added.
They also said that the rejection of the IHRA definition "speaks to the frustration of members who feel that their freedom to do this is under threat, and we will continue to advocate for all doctors and medical students to appropriately exercise freedom of expression on matters of conscience while at the same time protecting them from discrimination."
In the press conference, BMA consultants also criticised the NHS for endorsing this particular definition of antisemitism "without proper consultation or risk assessment," and called for an immediate investigation into its impact on staff.
The consultants also urged NHS England and all NHS organisations to conduct comprehensive risk assessments before implementing any speech-related policies, and urged "personal guidance and support" to be provided to medical staff who have faced disciplinary action for speaking out on Israel’s genocidal assault in the Gaza Strip , which has killed over 73,000 Palestinians since October 2023.
In the aftermath of the NHS’s endorsement las the IRHA’s antisemitism definition, a number of British Muslim medical groups said that it could risk being used to "silence legitimate criticism of the actions of the State of Israel, which could undermine humanitarian advocacy within the NHS".
The IRHA definition includes eleven examples of what it describes as antisemitic. Of these, seven directly mention Israel and include "applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation" as well as "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" and "drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis," Civil society groups, such as Jewish Voices for Labour, Liberty, and Americans for Peace Now, have denounced this as "attempting to widen the definition of antisemitism beyond Jews," and "constituting a legitimate threat to the advocacy of the Palestinian people and their rights."