The Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion has begun by adopting the IHRA definition as uncontroversial. Yet that definition – and its application to criticism of Israel – remains hotly disputed and politically charged.

Leaving to one side whether calling for and establishing the Royal Commission of Antisemitism and Social Cohesion was a good idea – and, with the benefit of hindsight, probably not – the Royal Commissioner’s statement at the Commission’s “opening” on 24 February suggests that Commissioner Bell has launched it on a very erroneous footing.

Whilst saying, “the starting point in addressing (the) first term of reference of the Commission requires an understanding of what constitutes antisemitism” she acknowledged “this is not a subject that is free of controversy”.

Her Honour stated that the Commission would adopt the IHRA (the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition of antisemitism in its deliberations, adding the “definition itself is uncontroversial”. One can only conclude that the statement is borne of ignorance, and that she will now enter a morass in trying to grapple with what she has been charged to investigate.

The definition, with examples of what would be considered anti-semitic is highly contentious – and the subject of challenge by many eminent people. For starters, the lead drafter of the definition wrote........

© Pearls and Irritations