A/74/358 identifying measured and informed responses. Unfortunately, many States fail to report altogether. Since 2004, OSCE has endeavoured to collect data on antisemitism and other hate crimes through its Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, but only 15 of the organization’s 57 member States submitted data on antisemitic incidents in 2017. 71 47. Underreporting is also a significant problem. In one survey, 79 per cent of respondents who had experienced harassment in the five years preceding the survey had not reported abuse, primarily because they believed that nothing would change if they did. 72 Civil society and OSCE reports reveal that many Jewish individuals do not feel comfortable reporting their experiences to law enforcement owing to the apparent normalization of incidents, distrust in the criminal justice system, lack of resources or fear that reporting a hate crime would reveal their Jewish identity to the public. In some instances, victims may not identify the crime against them as a hate crime, either because the experience is so common among people in their circumstances or because they are unaware that a crime with a hate motive is more serious than the same crime without such a motive. 73 48. Moreover, in 2014, fewer women than men reportedly experienced antisemitic harassment (17 per cent, compared to 24 per cent). 74 Those results could evidence a greater threat generally felt by women during periods of disruption, or they might point to significant underreporting. Such underreporting distorts statistics and may create the impression that hate crimes are less prevalent than they actually are. 49. The Special Rapporteur also observes that most civil society entities that monitor antisemitism, including Jewish organizations, do not frequently engage with United Nations human rights monitors. This lack of communication has inhibited the ability of United Nations experts and the intergovernmental bodies to which they report to address antisemitic acts and recommend actions to combat them. 75 50. The aforementioned myriad forms of antisemitism are reflected in the working definition of antisemitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in 2016. 76 The product of an initiative first undertaken in 2005 by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, the working definition was developed as a non-legal tool to facilitate more accurate and uniform monitoring of antisemitism across the countries that have adopted it and to educate officials and the broader public about the diverse forms of antisemitism. 51. The working definition defines antisemitism generally as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non -Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities ”. The definition further offers the following illustrations: (a) Manifestations might include the targeting of the State of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why __________________ 71 72 73 74 75 76 14/23 See http://hatecrime.osce.org/2017-data. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Experiences and Perceptions of Antisemitism, p. 12. See European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Experiences and Perceptions of Antisemitism. www.osce.org/odihr/320021?download=true. Submission by the Jacob Blaustein Institute. See www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism. 19-16257