Dominican Republic joins global fight against antisemitism with landmark move
The Dominican Republic is preparing to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism, becoming the 48th country worldwide and seventh in Latin America to do so. President Luis Abinader announced the decision at a regional forum in Santo Domingo and said antisemitism threatens democratic coexistence, rights and freedoms beyond Jewish communities.
The foreign ministry has been instructed to formalise the move, which supporters hope will encourage other Latin American governments to follow. The decision comes amid reported growth in antisemitic incidents: the Combat Antisemitism Movement recorded 767 globally in March 2026, 32.5% more than in March 2025. The IHRA definition is non-legally binding and is intended to help institutions identify and respond consistently to antisemitism.
- Dominican Republic will adopt the IHRA antisemitism definition.
- It would be the 48th country worldwide to do so.
- The move follows rising reported antisemitic incidents.
New here? Start with this
The Dominican Republic is a Caribbean country whose president, Luis Abinader, leads its government. Antisemitism means prejudice, hostility or discrimination directed at Jewish people; it has taken different forms over centuries, including the persecution of Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe during the Holocaust.
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) is an international body focused on Holocaust education and remembrance. Its working definition describes antisemitism and includes examples to help organisations recognise it, but it is not legally binding. Countries and institutions can adopt it as a guide, while deciding separately how their laws apply.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Adopting the IHRA definition can give public institutions a shared framework for recognising antisemitism and responding consistently, while signalling that hostility towards Jews is a concern for democratic rights more broadly. Supporters see the non-binding step as a practical way to raise awareness and encourage regional cooperation amid reported increases in incidents.
The case against
A government can condemn antisemitism without adopting this particular definition, and critics argue that some of its illustrative examples, especially those involving Israel, may blur the line between antisemitism and legitimate political criticism. They may worry that institutions could apply it too broadly, chilling speech or narrowing debate, and favour clearer safeguards or a different framework.