Save the Children UK has been condemned by politicians and whistleblowers after the charity opted against adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, despite an independent review suggesting it does so.
The review, which looked at antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice, was commissioned last March by the charity and carried out by consultants Global HPO (GHPO), found that “there appears to be a lack of appreciation and understanding of what constitutes antisemitism in the workplace”.
Its findings stated: “The impact felt by those who are Jewish and their colleagues hasn’t been fully understood, and people have been unable to speak about some of their experiences until now in an independent review.”
The report suggested adopting the IHRA definition, among other recommendations, but the charity instead has decided to stick with the Equality Act and Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) guidance on race and religion or belief discrimination to guide its antisemitism policies.
Critics of IHRA have argued against its adoption, largely due to its provisions listing the denial of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination, comparison of contemporary Israeli policies to those of the Nazis, and the suggestion that Israel’s establishment was an inherently racist endeavour as examples of contemporary antisemitism.
On its decision to reject the report’s recommendation to adopt the IHRA’s definition of antisemitism, Save the Children UK told the Telegraph: “Following the consultation with staff equality networks, Save the Children’s leadership agreed we will use the Equality Act and Acas guidance on race and religion or belief discrimination.”
Jon Pearce, a Labour MP and the UK’s special envoy for post-Holocaust issues, told The Telegraph: “The IHRA definition is the internationally recognised benchmark for identifying antisemitism.
“You cannot tackle a problem you are unwilling to identify, and Save the Children’s failure so far to adopt it is a deeply troubling indication of a wider cultural problem and a serious failure of leadership.
“It is sad to see where an organisation once held in such high regard has fallen. The independent report raises fundamental questions about whether Jewish staff can expect the same dignity, respect and equality as their colleagues.
“If it cannot guarantee that, how can it be trusted to fulfil its charitable objectives? I hope the Charity Commission will step in.”
The report also recommended that staff “resist the use of Hitler, Nazi and Holocaust metaphors, distortions and comparisons” when discussing the situation in Gaza.
And it urged that the word “Zionist” be employed “advisedly, carefully and never euphemistically or as part of personal abuse”.
Save the Children decided not to adopt an official policy specifically for this, writing: “On the question around use of Nazi and Holocaust metaphors and the use of the term ‘Zionist’, the recommendation was around their usage rather than for the establishment of a policy.
“We agreed, and this was in line with our existing communications guidelines and code of conduct, which colleagues are expected to follow and which we continue to implement.”
A former staff member, who has remained anonymous, claimed that anti-Israel attitudes within the charity have not changed since the report came out 18 months ago.
Citing one example of this, they said they have “concerns about different standards of attribution”.
When talking about the Gaza conflict, “Israel is named directly, while Hamas is described generically,” they went on.
“The wording is notable because Hamas is clearly named when discussing negotiations but not when attributing the October 7 attack.”
The charity has maintained that it has previously named Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups directly as responsible for October 7.
It comes after the charity criticised the then-outgoing prime minister Sir Keir Starmer on LinkedIn, accusing him of "complicity” in enabling “Israel’s atrocities against Palestinians”.
The charity produced a photograph of a blue plaque which read: “History will not forget complicity: Keir Starmer witnesses 73,000 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces, including 21,000 children, and kept supplying arms to Israel.”
In response, Baroness Chapman of Darlington, a Foreign Office minister, accused Save the Children UK of being “divisive, provocative, factually inaccurate” on social media.
Lady Chapman told the Lords: “I think there’s been an unfortunate use of social media by Save the Children, which I think is divisive, provocative, and factually inaccurate. We should all be conducting ourselves in a way that is respectful and grounded in substance.”
The Charity Commission confirmed to the Telegraph that it was examining the post for any breaches of charity law.
A spokesman for the Charity Commission said: “We have an ongoing regulatory compliance case to examine concerns raised with us about a social media post by Save the Children UK. As part of this, we are engaging with the charity’s trustees, which will help determine any regulatory response.”
George Graham, director of global impact at Save the Children UK, said: “We are deeply sad and sorry that colleagues experienced any form of hatred – whether antisemitism, anti-Muslim hate or other - in the workplace, as was found in the review we commissioned in 2024.
“We are utterly committed to tackling all forms of discrimination, including antisemitism. All colleagues should feel valued and respected and able to offer their best with confidence and safety. There is still work to do and we are not complacent.
“However, since the review, we have implemented a number of important measures, including reinforcing expectations around social media and online behaviour and strengthening how we plan and facilitate events on sensitive topics."
To get more news, click here to sign up for our free daily newsletter.