Which of the IHRA's statements do you find objectionable?

They specifically say, on the site you linked to, "However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic."

You say, "All states are legitimate targets of criticism."

So what are you adding here? Do you mean to say, "Disproportionate, unique, and specially-applied of criticism of Israel is fair and even encouraged, and you're not permitted to wonder why, out of all countries, critics might choose to target Israel in this way"?

Of course in practice it's very tempting for a government to wield a get-out-of-criticism-free card by charging that a criticism is "dissimilar".

But it's also very tempting to state things like, "Unlike the IHRA definition, which locates antisemitism in what we say about Israel."

You managed to write an entire article disputing something without managing to (1) say what precisely you were disputing, or (2) suggest a meaningfully different alternative.

I absolutely support our ability to criticize problematic ideas, states, and even people; and I strongly reject censorship. But you haven't done a good job of supporting your claims here at all. If one reads your Law Culture and Humanities (2018) paper, you do a somewhat better job but even there you spend a lot of space talking about generalities and way less detailing how specific applications of the IHRA quasi-laws have resulted in an illegitimate stifling of criticism.

This is particularly important because one wonders whether a counter-document detailing legitimate criticisms of Israel wouldn't be fully adequate to solve the problem.