Scott J. Lawson
May 3, 2024
On May 1, 2024 the GOP-controlled House of Representatives passed H.R. 6090, “The Antisemitism Awareness Act,” as large protests continue on college campuses and elsewhere across the US in opposition to Israeli warfare in Gaza and the Israeli government’s longstanding actions during the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The bill was introduced by Republican Representative Mike Lawler (NY-17) and had 61 co-sponsors including 15 Democrats.
The stated purpose of the bill is “To provide for the consideration of a definition of antisemitism set forth by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance for the enforcement of Federal antidiscrimination laws concerning education programs or activities.” The bill adds, “For purposes of this Act, the term ‘‘definition of anti-semitism’’— (1) means the definition of antisemitism adopted on May 26, 2016, by the IHRA, of which the United States is a member, which definition has been adopted by the Department of State; and (2) includes the “contemporary examples of antisemitism’’ identified in the IHRA definition.”
The bill states, “In reviewing, investigating, or deciding whether there has been a violation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) on the basis of race, color, or national origin, based on an individual’s actual or perceived shared Jewish ancestry or Jewish ethnic characteristics, the Department of Education shall take into consideration the definition of antisemitism as part of the Department’s assessment of whether the practice was motivated by antisemitic intent.”
Upon review of this definition however, it becomes apparent why so many Representatives (Democrat & Republican), presumably all of which condemn antisemitism and discrimination in general, voted against the bill. Despite assurances to the contrary, the definition is written in a manner that essentially deems most contemporary criticism of the State of Israel and its actions and affairs during the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as “antisemitic” either directly or indirectly. It also contains vague and subjective statements that could be misconstrued or over-generalized. Some pundits have even noted that under this definition technically believing and advocating the New Testament is “anti-semitic.” Extreme examples aside, this bill is not a step in the right direction. As noted in the bill, the Department of Education has already been acting on this definition in investigations since 2018. In the current environment if passed and implemented with the force of law it threatens to stifle First Amendment free speech rights and may result in yet another avenue for the weaponization of government against The People – a concept Republicans have recently been investigating and strongly opposing.
To understand why the IHRA’s “working definition” is problematic, it ought to be broken down and analyzed. The primary definition expressed in itself is not the problem. It is as follows, ““Antisemitism is 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.”
As specifically noted in H.R. 6090, the “contemporary examples of antisemitism” IHRA listed are also relevant to the overall “working definition” of antisemitism the House is attempting to codify. It is here where the problems start.
The IHRA states, “Manifestations (of antisemitism) might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”
Just as the authors of H.R. 6090 probably sensed they were playing with fire when they wrote in their bill, “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States,” so too does the IHRA appear to be attempting to preempt criticism by including the above statement regarding legitimate criticism of Israel. Including such disclaimers however does not cancel out the illogical notions in the rest of the statement. By indicating that antisemitism may manifest as “targeting” the State of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity, the damage is already done. Under this definition and regarding the examples that follow, every criticism of the State of Israel and its actions are automatically open to the possibility of allegations of bigoted motivations. Saying “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic” becomes meaningless in the context because all the contemporary controversies surrounding Israel involve some level or aspect of “Jewishness” that must be addressed one way or another.
Indeed, opposing certain aspects of Israel’s “Basic Law” itself would likely run afoul of the IHRA definition by some interpretations, specifically the nation-state law approved by the Knesset on July 19, 2018. This law established that, “The land of Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish people, in which the State of Israel was established. The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people, in which it fulfills its natural, cultural, religious and historical right to self-determination. The right to exercise national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.” Ironically, some of the essential notions and specific passages in this Basic Law (akin to constitutional law) are contrary to the spirit of the Civil Rights Act and the US Constitution. In Israel the law was vigorously debated and many aspects of it are regarded as discriminatory by its opposition. The law only passed 62-55 with two members of the Knesset abstaining. The point here is that one cannot separate Jewishness from the State of Israel because the State of Israel defines itself by its Jewishness. This will always leave the door open for charges of antisemitism upon any criticism of the State of Israel if we are to accept some of the faulty premises upon which the IHRA base their position.
The IHRA continues, “Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits. Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
-Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
-Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
-Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
-Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
-Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
-Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
-Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
-Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
-Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
-Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
-Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.”
Obviously there are a lot of ideas and acts listed here that can rightly be said to be illogical, hateful, violent, and wrong. For the purposes of determining someone’s intent however (in a protest or a critical book/paper for example), we ought not attempt to conflate ideas or make assumptions. These bullet points, as listed by the IHRA, do that to a certain extent and this makes the entire work unsuitable for official purposes. This is especially true regarding the bullet points that mention the State of Israel. To protect individuals from discrimination and enforce anti-discrimination laws, as is the stated purpose of H.R. 6090, it is unnecessary to include language that tries to preempt debate about the merits of The State of Israel’s systems, policies, and practices by poisoning the well with presumed or implied evil motivations.
Antisemitism proper, that is, that which is inherently fallacious in the same manner as other discrimination based on immutable physical characteristics coupled with the furtherance of illogical generalizations and stereotypes, is of course wrong. This bill is not needed to protect against it and sacrificing the free speech rights of Americans is not the way to solve a real and/or perceived problem of rising anti-semitism. This bill appears at least partially political in nature. Hopefully the Senate, as the more deliberative of the two legislative bodies, recognizes it is unwise to threaten fundamental rights in order to look politically tough and achieve short term gains. The Senate must block this bill; we can reduce real anti-semitism by fostering discussion and actually working to find logical compromises and solutions to problems. We don’t do it through continued threats, coercion, and ignoring injustices where they occur.