Much ink has already been spilled on the antisemitism crisis plaguing the United States. As the new Trump administration seeks to crack down on antisemitism on university campuses, Congress should finally pass legislation that treats the subject with the importance it deserves. Politicking by Sen. Chuck Schumer prevented the Antisemitism Awareness Act (AAA) from passing last December, largely due to fears over exposing a divide amongst senate Democrats. Now, there is a fresh opportunity for Congress to act after the bill was reintroduced in the House in February with bipartisan support. Senate Republicans and Democrats should show the same bipartisanship as their House colleagues and get this legislation over the line.
The fundamental aim of the AAA is to force the Department of Education to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism when enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. In this way, the act would require schools receiving federal tax dollars to protect students adequately from antisemitic discrimination, lest they forfeit their funding. Despite an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote passing the AAA in the House (320-91), spurious misunderstandings and lies about what the bill would accomplish have abounded. From bizarre claims from some Republicans that the bill would “ban” some portions of the New Testament to hysteria from some far-left Democrats that the bill codifies special protections for Israel into U.S. law, the AAA is the victim of serious slander. The AAA does not criminalize any speech, even the most virulent antisemitism. Rather, it seeks to ensure that taxpayer-funded institutions protect their Jewish students from harm and discrimination just as they would for any other minority student group.
The IHRA’s given examples of antisemitism have proven to be the chief cause of concern for opponents of the bill. For some progressives, the greatest concern is how these examples might be used to stifle legitimate criticism of Israel. Others have focused on free-speech concerns. Take a closer look at the examples themselves, though, and you’ll be left wondering what exactly these opponents are afraid they can no longer say.
Firstly, the free speech objections presented by a small minority of Republicans in the House seem to be a misunderstanding of the bill in its entirety. Of course, any attempt to bring about legal consequences for speech in itself would be unconstitutional and met with opposition by most Americans. The AAA does not seek to do this, but rather to address the problem of taxpayer-funded institutions failing to protect their Jewish students and staff, a problem that is clearly rife today. Wilder objections from the likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene and Tucker Carlson – that the bill somehow bans or restricts the New Testament or that it could be used to persecute Christians – are farcical. Perhaps ironically, the fact that Taylor Greene seems to believe that the Jewish people were responsible for the crucifixion of Christ is evidence of the clear need for a bill addressing antisemitism in a straightforward way.
The majority of opposition to the bill last time came from anti-Israel Democrats. It seems only natural to me, though, that any working definition of antisemitism would cover examples of how prejudice against the world’s only Jewish state can stray into antisemitism. The IHRA covers several specific examples of this, including comparing Israeli policy to that of Nazi Germany, using classic antisemitic symbols like the blood libel to criticize Israel, and denying the Jewish people their “right to self-determination” by calling for the destruction of Israel or by suggesting that Israel is in itself a racist pursuit. It also covers specific accusations against individual Jewish people that relate specifically to Israel, including accusations of “dual loyalty” or holding Jews worldwide responsible for the actions of the Israeli government.
Opponents of IHRA often characterize these examples as incredibly broad and, therefore, a risk to free expression, when in fact the opposite is true. Where criticism of Israel is concerned, it’s a deliberate, conscious choice to compare the Jewish state to Nazi Germany. This is almost never done from ignorance, almost always from malice. There is a reason why Hamas uses terms like “Nazi Zionism” in its propaganda. It is deeply malicious to accuse Jews of inflicting or invoking the same evil that murdered 6 million of their own people in Europe. It’s generally a good idea to stay away from Nazi comparisons in any civilized political debate, but it should not be difficult to see why Nazi comparisons levied against Israel stray into antisemitism.
There is also a convincing case as to why calls for the destruction of Israel, or the denial that a Jewish state could ever exist legitimately, is antisemitic. Firstly, only when criticizing Israel do calls for dissolution of the state itself appear. Even when criticizing the most murderous autocrats on the planet, whether it be President Putin or Ayatollah Khamenei, nobody calls for the dissolution of Russia or Iran. One can be the harshest critic of Netanyahu and his far-right coalition without calling for the total disestablishment of Israel (especially knowing what the consequences would bring). If the only country on earth you wish to see destroyed is coincidentally the world’s only Jewish state, ask yourself why IHRA might incorporate this into its definitions.
Secondly, denying the right of the Jewish people to self-determination by claiming that Israel could never exist legitimately in any form, like the “racist endeavor” example found in IHRA, is nigh on indefensible. Much is rightly made in the international arena of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and, therefore, their eventual right to statehood. If an Israeli politician were to say that a Palestinian state in principle would always be illegitimate, there would rightly be outraged accusations of deeply irrational anti-Palestinianism. This is the exact same principle behind the self-determination example found in IHRA.
The examples relating to Jewish individuals are even more clear cut. Accusations of dual loyalty and collective responsibility are tales as old as time. Of course, in matters of national security, it is perfectly legitimate for governments to be wary of any external loyalties of their employees, but when this noble aim turns inquisitorial against Jews, there is an antisemitism problem. Henry Kissinger famously declared to Golda Meir as she petitioned for support for Israel during the Yom Kippur war, “First I am an American, second I am Secretary of State, third I am a Jew.” I ask critics of the IHRA to reflect, if they are unsatisfied by this answer, whether they would feel differently if Mr. Kissinger had declared himself a Catholic last, or had a different ancestry.
Passing the AAA will help to counter the current surge of antisemitism in the U.S. As the Republican administration seeks to ensure that college campuses and other federally funded institutions protect their Jewish populace, Congress has the chance to support that mission in a bipartisan way. Lawmakers should not hesitate.
