The lobby of Sick Kids Hospital in Toronto. Photo: Zaminali Okera (Unsplash)

OPINION: New Survey Exaggerates Antisemitic Threat in Medicine to Push IHRA, Stifling Criticism of Israel

Two weeks ago, a survey conducted by the Jewish Medical Association of Ontario (JMAO) made headlines in the Toronto Star, the National Post and the Toronto Sun. The methodologically-questionable survey promotes misleading claims about antisemitism and Jewish identity — namely that there is an environment of imminent and overwhelming danger facing Jewish physicians in Canada. 

As Jewish physicians, we share our colleagues’ concerns about real and disturbing incidents of antisemitism in Canada today, especially those perpetrated by white supremacists. Unfortunately, criticisms of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza are often mislabelled as instances of antisemitism. This results in a mainstream discourse around antisemitism that serves to suppress legitimate political debate. And it has led some Canadian health workers to be defamed as antisemitic or even suspended for calling attention to Israeli war crimes against the Palestinian people.

To effectively combat antisemitism and other forms of discrimination, we must accurately identify them. 

In her 2024 analysis of the Canadian pro-Israel organization B’nai Brith’s Audit of Antisemitic Incidents, Toronto-based Jewish scholar Sheryl Nestel concluded that “while there is a rise in antisemitic incidents, claims of imminent danger to Canadian Jews are fueling a moral panic that is both disingenuous and dangerous.” 

JMAO, in our view, engages in similar tactics, suggesting that Jewish doctors are being forced out of healthcare as a consequence of rising antisemitism. They do this while health workers in Gaza and Lebanon have been slaughtered en masse, and while Canadian medical establishment organizations remain silent as Israel systematically attacks Palestinian health care facilities. 

The JMAO report appears to be yet another attempt to weaponize a politicized understanding of antisemitism to silence criticism of the State of Israel. 

Part of the organization’s mission is “building solidarity with Israel,” as per its website.  

Its recent report has not been made publicly available. In its press release, no specific examples of antisemitism are provided. The most common forms of antisemitism people reported were organizational policies (57 per cent) and organizational communications (55 per cent), but we are given no details of what these refer to. 

Participants included in the survey are not clearly described, other than that they are members of JMAO and similar organizations in other provinces, all of which appear to have been formed since October 2023. Did JMAO recruit its participants from a biased sample of physicians already swept into politicized and fear-driven conversations about antisemitism in Canada?

The apparent weaponization of antisemitism for political purposes comes at a time when arrest warrants for Israel’s leaders have been issued by the International Criminal Court, when the International Court of Justice has issued an Advisory Opinion finding that Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory amount to apartheid, and when the world’s leading human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, have concluded that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Just last week, Human Rights Watch published a 179-page report titled “Extermination and Acts of Genocide: Israel Deliberately Depriving Palestinians in Gaza of Water.” 

If someone defines protest against the State of Israel or expression of solidarity with Palestinians as antisemitic, then they are likely to experience antisemitism when they encounter someone referring to Israel as an apartheid state or protesting against corporations like Indigo and Starbucks. We reject such a politicized definition of antisemitism, and accordingly, the JMAO survey does not represent our experiences as Jewish physicians in Canada.

Like many prominent pro-Israel organizations in Canada, JMAO conflates criticism of the State of Israel with antisemitism through its promotion of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism. 

The IHRA definition offers a broad, vague framing of antisemitism and was designed to guide the collection of data about incidents of antisemitism, not to function as a basis for institutional policy. In fact, the IHRA definition’s lead author has condemned the weaponization of the definition by right wing Jewish groups and has urged leaders not to enforce adherence to it. Dozens of institutions around the world have rejected the IHRA definition, including the University of Toronto and the Canadian Association of University Teachers.  

In a submission made to Canada’s Parliament in June, the national group that JMAO is part of, the Canadian Federation of Jewish Medical Associations, stated their desire that “medical schools, and universities as a whole, need to have their funding and accreditation tied to solving their antisemitism problem, including adopting the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism as a regulatory tool.”

The most serious problem with the definition is its list of examples, many of which focus on criticisms of the State of Israel. Where the IHRA definition has been adopted, it has served to suppress criticisms of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza and to stifle solidarity with Palestinians, including Jewish solidarity. This chilling effect appears to be the aim of JMAO and others who advocate aggressively for the adoption of the IHRA definition, which also makes it difficult to name and confront anti-Palestinian racism

In a submission made to Canada’s Parliament in June, the national group that JMAO is part of, the Canadian Federation of Jewish Medical Associations, stated their desire that “medical schools, and universities as a whole, need to have their funding and accreditation tied to solving their antisemitism problem, including adopting the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism as a regulatory tool.”

This aim of entrenching IHRA is further served when legacy media outlets report uncritically on claims of antisemitism by pro-Israel groups.

As Jewish health workers, we share a strong commitment to social justice, an energetic defense of academic freedom, and an unwavering opposition to antisemitism along with all forms of racism and discrimination. We challenge claims that equate Judaism and Jewishness with loyalty to the State of Israel, and we oppose the adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism, including in health faculties and institutions. We stand strongly with all those working to attain liberation and justice for the people of Palestine.