The 3% Strategy: How Institutions Use Fringe Jewish Voices to Dismantle Jewish Safety

The Trump-Era Bypass: A New Stage in Undermining the IHRA Definition

There’s a global pattern emerging that’s too consistent to ignore, and it represents a sophisticated evolution of the anti-Israel bias and antisemitism.

Among others, NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani appoints Phylisa Wisdom — a progressive Jewish leader who has questioned the IHRA definition — to lead his office on combating antisemitism. Canada’s Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario chooses Independent Jewish Voices, a group that actively supports boycotting Israel, to train teachers on what antisemitism is. La Trobe University in Australia adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism, but “without its 11 examples” which include antizionism.

This isn’t random. It’s a coordinated response to the IHRA definition’s unexpected success — and a calculated strategy to neutralize the most effective tool Jewish communities have built in decades.

The IHRA Definition: From Contested Framework to Institutional Bulwark

When the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance adopted its working definition of antisemitism in May 2016, few anticipated it would become the front line in the battle over Jewish safety. The definition faced immediate challenges from critics who argued it conflated legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism. Alternative frameworks like the Jerusalem Declaration – which La Trobe University adopted “as guidelines”  — emerged specifically to counter it.

Yet despite this opposition — or perhaps because of it — the IHRA definition achieved remarkable institutional adoption. By February 2026, 47 countries have formally adopted it, including 26 of 27 EU member states, along with the U.S., Canada and even Albania. Hundreds of universities, municipalities and international organizations followed suit.

More importantly, it worked. Events smearing Israel were canceled on campuses; funding streams to BDS organizations faced scrutiny. This effectiveness made the IHRA definition a strategic target.

Enter the 3% Strategy: Political Cover with a Kosher Stamp

The anti-Israel coalition learned a crucial lesson: you can’t frontally assault a definition adopted by 47 countries and backed by Holocaust remembrance institutions. Instead, you find the 3% of Jews who agree with you and hand them the microphone, the title and the authority to speak “on behalf of Jews.”

This isn’t a bug. It’s a feature designed specifically to bypass Trump-era protections and institutional safeguards built around the IHRA framework.

When Mayor Mamdani — who himself refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and revoked the city’s IHRA adoption on his first day in office — appoints someone to combat antisemitism, he doesn’t choose from the majority of Jewish leaders who support the IHRA definition. He chooses from the 3% who will provide cover for redefining antisemitism so narrowly that demonizing Israel falls safely outside its scope.

When a teachers’ union brings in Independent Jewish Voices — a group that actively campaigns for BDS and against the IHRA definition — to educate about Jew-hatred, that’s not inclusion. That’s institutional capture designed to ensure the next generation learns that boycotting only the Jewish state isn’t antisemitic.

Jews have always served as fig leaves for anti-Israel campaigns — including self-described Holocaust survivors on Gaza flotillas. But this represents something new: systematic institutional deployment of fringe Jewish voices specifically to dismantle the legal and policy frameworks that protect Jewish students and communities.

The Ethical Distortion: From Tunnels to “Decolonial Land Use”

It is no wonder that CUNY Law School’s Students for Justice in Palestine is hosting an event on March 4 framing Hamas’ terror tunnels as “decolonial land use” and “resistance to colonization” — at a publicly funded institution, in the heart of Manhattan.

This event exemplifies how this strategy couples with purposeful ethical distortion of Western values. Dr. Hadeel Assali — whose doctoral advisor is Mahmood Mamdani, the mayor’s father and a Columbia anti-Israel activist — will present Hamas’ tunnel network as “decolonial land use” and examine “social organization in resistance to colonization.”

These are tunnels where hostages were starved, tortured, sexually assaulted and executed. The tunnels’ presence in civilian areas contributed directly to Gaza’s widespread destruction.

Yet at a publicly funded law school in Manhattan, this infrastructure of terror will be academically legitimized as “resistance” — packaged in the language of decolonization, indigenous rights, and anti-imperialism. This isn’t education. It’s the weaponization of progressive terminology to normalize atrocity.

The IHRA definition became a real hurdle for anti-Israel activism. The 3% strategy dismantles it with plausible deniability: appoint Jewish voices who redefine antisemitism to exclude what the movement wants normalized. This isn’t diversity — it’s weaponized identity, ensuring the next generation learns IHRA itself is problematic, not the activities it identifies.

The 3% are loud, disciplined, and therefore useful to institutions seeking “Jewish” cover for dismantling the IHRA definition—but they don’t represent the 97% who experience these campaigns as a direct threat to Jewish safety. What’s needed now is a clear, mass renouncement: not of anyone’s right to speak, but of the fraud of speaking for Jews while narrowing antisemitism until the worst abuses disappear from view.