Jewish Representative Council of Ireland told media regulator it classifies content critical of Israel’s existence as ‘antisemitic’

The Jewish Representative Council of Ireland (JRCI) in its successful application for a position identifying antisemitic content online told Coimisiún na Meán it would internally classify material “denying Jewish people self-determination, e.g., by claiming Israel’s existence is racist” as antisemitic. 

In its application documents for a “trusted flagger” position, JRCI said it will internally categorise content that is “antisemitic content related to Israel”, along with “traditional antisemitism” and “holocaust-related content” before determining whether to flag it. 

A strategy document submitted by JRCI also states that “policy guidelines of major platforms will be referenced for lawful but harmful content.” 

The Digital Services Act requires online platforms operating in the EU to fast-track content moderation notices submitted by officially recognised "trusted flaggers." That means anything flagged by the JCRI and other flaggers receives priority for removal from companies like Google and Meta. 

Not a legal standard 

The Jewish Representative Council of Ireland told Coimisiún na Meán that, as a trusted flagger, the council would use the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. 

Its application, obtained by The Ditch under freedom of information legislation, was successful. 

Among the examples of antisemitism related to Israel cited are “requiring a behaviour from Israel not expected of other countries” and “comparisons of Israeli policy to Nazism” – something holocaust survivor and author Gabor Maté has used.   

The definition's adoption is opposed by more than 100 Israeli and international human rights groups, among them B'Tselem, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberties Union, which cite concerns over freedom of expression. Under the IHRA's definition, describing Israel's existence as a racist undertaking counts as antisemitic. 

After engagement with the regulator, which told the JRCI that it must flag content in accordance with Irish and EU law, the group agreed that it would use the IHRA definition internally while gathering material to potentially present to social media companies for removal.   

Its application for trusted flagger status said it will establish a public reporting mechanism to gather complaints, monitor reports of alleged illegal content and submit flags directly to tech platforms. 

It also states that the JRCI has a “track record” in promoting intercultural dialogue, reporting antisemitic incidents and collaborating with stakeholders like government representatives. This has, the application says, equipped the JRCI with “the expertise needed to identify and report harmful content with accuracy and diligence”.

Another document obtained by The Ditch – a Coimisiún na Meán internal assessment dated June 11, 2026 – shows the regulator repeatedly challenged JRCI over how it planned to use the IHRA definition of antisemitism in practice.

In July 2025 the regulator noted that the JRCI’s language seemed to suggest it would identify antisemitic material partly “by reference to” the IHRA definition. Coimisiún na Meán flagged this as a problem, noting the IHRA definition "is not a legal standard applied under Irish or EU law”.

Another meeting between the regulator and JRCI took place on May 12 2026. 

At that meeting JRCI acknowledged that the Hate Offences Act does not criminalise Holocaust denial and clarified that it does not treat the IHRA definition as a threshold for illegality. Instead JRCI told the regulator the definition would be used only "to assist in framing" content internally as potentially antisemitic. 

A spokesperson for Coimisiún na Meán told The Ditch that the regulator had “clearly communicated” to JCRI that any definition of illegal content must be based on Irish and EU law.

The spokesperson said this included illegal antisemitic material, such as incitement to hatred under the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989.

“The IHRA definition of antisemitism is not a legal standard that is applicable under Irish or EU law and could not be used by trusted flaggers for reporting illegal content,” the spokesperson said.

Coimisiún na Meán also clarified that content considered objectionable by JCRI or another organisation may nevertheless be lawful under Irish and EU law and therefore could not be used as a standard for reporting illegal content.

“JRCI accepted as part of these discussions that, if awarded trusted flagger status, their reports must be compliant with legally binding standards,” the spokesperson said.