Yes, JDA has a substantially better document than the IHRA. I still think, however, that you haven't made a very good case against the IHRA, and even if it wasn't your primary goal in the article, I don't think it's reasonable to assume readers ought to take a negative attitude towards it without a good case made against it. Even in your paper, your choice of examples was peculiar--your first example was a case where someone had to change a title to be less provocative, but you mentioned without specifying what they were that other things were cancelled. Showing one questionable case (that title honestly was pretty bad, and you didn't make a compelling case that the author was not committing an instance of "encoded" antisemitism which the JDA document recognizes) when you have clearer examples seems odd unless in fact the things that were cancelled were even more questionable.

The reason I focused on the IHRA example is that it has the virtue of specificity. We can talk about its harmful or beneficial effects on society and how it is misused or appropriately used without having to wonder overly much about the definition of terms. I do think it's harmful, especially compared to something like the JDA document. But I think one could do better at bringing the harms into clear focus.

Frankly, I think you made an even weaker case for a materialist approach to fight racism. You seem to be enamored of the Marxist and Critical Theory traditions which, it's true, styled themselves as materialist, but there are plenty of extremely divergent views from those that are also (philosophically) materialist. It seems fairer to characterize it as a CT approach rather than a materialist one. Regardless, you don't in your article provide any evidence that the material conditions of people actually underlie antisemitism any more than does a (materially-implemented) psychological stance against them as a very clear outgroup. Notably, Scott Atran, in his post 9/11 research on what provoked people to terrorism, found pretty convincingly that it was not an obvious material cause but more a matter of group psychology (as I read him).

Furthermore, since the dominant contemporary trends in anti-racism draw extremely heavily on Critical Theory and thus at least transitively comprise a materialist approach, simply calling it "materialist" still begs the question of whether what you're proposing isn't already the standard.