UK Government Faces Legal Challenge Over IHRA Antisemitism Definition in Schools

On November 4, 2026, the Good Law Project and the British Jewish group Na'amod launched a legal challenge against the UK Department for Education. The action targets the government's recommendation that schools and colleges adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism. This recommendation stems from the Bell Review, a report by former civil servant Sir David Bell, which ministers accepted in full. The legal challenge was initiated via a pre-action protocol letter, formally notifying the department of the intent to sue to protect the space for vigorous criticism of Israel.

Critics of the move, including the Good Law Project's executive director Jo Maugham, argue that the IHRA definition conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism. Maugham expressed concern that such rules could actually drive antisemitism by constraining legitimate political expression. Na'amod added that the definition's illustrative examples often lead to the censorship of discussions regarding Gaza or the Nakba, forcing teachers to police students rather than tackling actual anti-Jewish racism. Furthermore, the National Education Union warned that establishing separate measures for antisemitism, distinct from general anti-racism policies, risks creating a hierarchy of racism within the education system.

Supporters of the adoption, including several Labour MPs and the Jewish Leadership Council, have condemned the legal challenge as a disgrace. They argue the definition is a vital tool for recognizing and preventing anti-Jewish hatred at a time when Jewish pupils face unprecedented levels of bullying. However, the methodology of the Bell Review has faced scrutiny; while it was reported that three in five Jewish students experienced antisemitism, the survey actually found that 29 out of 70 Jewish respondents—approximately 41 percent—reported such experiences. Despite the low sample size of 92 Jewish students in a survey of 5,000, the Department for Education maintains that the IHRA definition provides a practical framework already used by 47 countries.

The IHRA working definition of antisemitism was formulated in 2004 as a non-legally binding tool for monitoring hate speech. It has since been adopted by 47 countries and numerous public bodies. However, it remains controversial because seven of its 11 illustrative examples involve references to the state of Israel. Kenneth Stern, the definition's lead author, has himself warned against its use as a disciplinary or legal instrument, citing risks to legitimate political expression and the potential for a chilling effect on speech.

In the UK education system, the treatment of the Israel-Palestine conflict has long been a point of contention. Previous education secretaries have instructed headteachers to maintain political impartiality, yet pro-Palestinian advocates argue that Palestine is treated as a partisan issue while Zionism is not. Groups like UK Lawyers for Israel have successfully lobbied for the removal of educational materials, such as BBC GCSE Bitesize videos, while organizations like StandWithUs UK provide resources and trips to Israel. Critics argue this creates an imbalance where teachers feel anxious about covering Palestinian history or answering students' questions for fear of violating neutrality or being accused of antisemitism.