Ali Ikhwan
SANTO DOMINGO — In a move that has ignited intense debate over the boundaries of free speech and the legacy of Caribbean authoritarianism, the Dominican government has officially adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism. While framed by the administration of President Luis Abinader as a commitment to human rights and historical responsibility, the decision has been met with sharp criticism from legal scholars, human rights advocates, and political analysts. Critics contend the move is a strategic attempt to shield the Israeli government from accountability for its policies in Gaza and the West Bank, while simultaneously reinforcing a domestic agenda that many describe as "Neo-Trujilloist."
Main Facts: A Controversial Endorsement
On August 24, President Luis Abinader announced the adoption of the IHRA definition during a high-profile event in Santo Domingo. The gathering was organized by the Combat Antisemitism Movement, a prominent U.S.-based Zionist organization. Following the announcement, the Dominican Foreign Ministry issued a formal statement justifying the decision by invoking the nation’s history. Specifically, the ministry cited the 1938 decision by the Dominican State to offer asylum in Sosúa to Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany—a moment the government claims reflects a long-standing policy against hate and discrimination.
However, the IHRA definition itself remains a flashpoint of international controversy. While it defines antisemitism as a "certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews," its accompanying examples include "claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor" and "applying double standards" to its actions. Human rights organizations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have warned that the definition is frequently used to equate legitimate criticism of the Israeli state—such as opposition to settlement expansion or allegations of apartheid—with anti-Jewish bigotry.
In the Dominican context, the adoption is seen by many as a geopolitical maneuver. By aligning with the IHRA framework, the Abinader administration signals its total subordination to U.S. foreign policy interests and its growing military and technological partnership with the Israeli defense sector.
Chronology: From the 1938 Evian Conference to 2024
To understand the weight of this decision, one must look at the timeline of Dominican-Israeli relations and the historical revisionism currently at play.
- 1937: The Parsley Massacre. Just one year before the Dominican Republic offered asylum to Jewish refugees, the regime of dictator Rafael Trujillo orchestrated the "Parsley Massacre," the state-sponsored genocide of an estimated 9,000 to 20,000 Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian descent.
- 1938: The Evian Conference. At this international summit, the Dominican Republic was the only nation to offer large-scale visas to Jewish refugees. Historians have long argued that Trujillo’s motive was not humanitarianism, but "whitening" (blanqueamiento) the Dominican population following the slaughter of Black Haitians.
- 2004–2016: The Birth of the IHRA Definition. Originally drafted in 2004, the definition was adopted by the IHRA in 2016. It has since been promoted globally by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs as a cornerstone of its "new antisemitism" doctrine.
- 2019–2023: Regional Adoption. Under the influence of the Trump administration, several Latin American nations—including Argentina, Colombia, and Guatemala—adopted the definition. During this period, the Dominican Republic also began utilizing Israeli-made Pegasus spyware to monitor domestic journalists.
- August 2024: Official Adoption. President Abinader formally adopts the IHRA definition, cementing a right-wing shift in Dominican foreign policy.
Supporting Data: The Regional Shift to the Right
The Dominican Republic’s decision does not exist in a vacuum. It is part of a broader "Blue Wave" of right-wing alignment across Latin America, often driven by U.S. interference and the decline of the "Pink Tide" center-left governments.
Legal Precedents and Criminalization
Data from across the region suggests that the IHRA definition is increasingly used as a legal tool to suppress dissent. In Argentina, the definition was cited in legal proceedings against left-wing leaders Alejandro Bodart, Vanina Biasi, and Mariano Soria for their public statements regarding Palestine. Similarly, in Brazil, socialist leader Zé Maria was sentenced to two years in prison, and journalist Breno Altman was fined for criticizing the Israeli state.
Military and Technological Ties
The Dominican Republic’s alignment with Israel is backed by significant material exchange. In recent years, the Abinader administration has:
- Signed major agreements on water management with Israeli firms.
- Renewed its military arsenal with Israeli-manufactured weaponry.
- Utilized Israeli cyber-intelligence tools (Pegasus) against members of the press.
The Domestic Human Rights Crisis
While the government purports to fight "hate and discrimination" through the IHRA definition, its domestic record tells a different story. According to reports from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), more than 200,000 Dominicans of Haitian descent remain stateless due to discriminatory rulings. Over the last six years, the government has conducted over one million deportations, a process marked by systemic violence and dozens of documented deaths.
Official Responses: A Clash of Interpretations
The Abinader administration maintains that the adoption of the IHRA definition is a step toward global moral leadership. The Foreign Ministry’s statement emphasized that the Dominican Republic is "reaffirming its commitment to the values of peace and coexistence."
However, this narrative is challenged by the very person who drafted the definition. Kenneth Stern, a liberal Zionist and the main author of the IHRA text, has repeatedly warned against its adoption into law. In testimonies to the U.S. Senate and various international bodies, Stern argued that right-wing sectors have "weaponized" his work to create a "McCarthyist environment" on college campuses and in political life. Stern has noted with alarm that the definition is being used to label even Jewish critics of Israel as antisemites.
Within the Dominican Republic, legal scholar Jaime Rodríguez has raised concerns about the constitutional implications. While the endorsement is not yet legally binding, Rodríguez warns that enshrining it into the Dominican legislative framework would provide a "blank check" for state censorship. "The danger is that any expression of solidarity with the Palestinian people could soon be treated as a criminal offense under the guise of fighting hate speech," Rodríguez noted in a recent legal analysis.
Implications: The Shadow of Neo-Trujilloism
The implications of this policy shift are two-fold: geopolitical and domestic.
Geopolitical Subordination
The adoption of the IHRA definition signals the Dominican Republic’s total alignment with the "Shield of the Americas" coalition, a regional group heavily influenced by pro-Trump ideologies. By making Dominican airports available for U.S. military operations and accepting "third-country" deportees from the U.S., Abinader has positioned the country as a strategic outpost for North American interests in the Caribbean, particularly regarding the containment of Venezuela and the surveillance of regional movements.
The "Blueprint" for Dominican Apartheid
Perhaps the most chilling implication is the ideological affinity between the current Dominican administration and the Zionist project. Observers have noted that the Dominican ultra-right increasingly views Israel’s security apparatus and border policies as a "blueprint" for the Dominican Republic. It is no coincidence that neo-Nazi and ultra-nationalist organizations in Santo Domingo have been seen waving Israeli flags during racist marches against Haitian migrants.
To these groups, the Israeli model of "fortress democracy"—characterized by border walls, mass surveillance, and the systematic disenfranchisement of an ethnic minority—is the ideal solution for what they term the "Haitian problem." By adopting a definition that labels criticism of such state structures as "antisemitic," the Abinader government effectively immunizes its own domestic policies from international scrutiny.
Conclusion: Normalizing the Exception
The adoption of the IHRA definition by the Dominican Republic represents more than a simple diplomatic gesture. It is a calculated move to rewrite history, using the tragedy of the Holocaust to provide moral cover for contemporary human rights abuses. By invoking the 1938 asylum of Jewish refugees—while ignoring the 1937 massacre of Haitians—the Abinader administration is attempting to construct a "sanitized" version of the Trujillo era.
As the country moves toward potentially enshrining this definition into law, the fragile democratic guarantees of the Dominican Republic face an existential threat. The criminalization of Palestine solidarity serves as a precursor to the broader suppression of any movement that challenges the state’s narrative of racial and national identity. In the eyes of many critics, normalizing genocide and apartheid abroad is simply a means of normalizing ethnic cleansing and statelessness at home. The "Neo-Trujilloist" present, it seems, is being built on the weaponization of the past.
Jia Lissa
Suro Senen
