Congress needs to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism
When it comes to laws, policies and guidelines, definitions and language mean everything. However, if definitions are poorly worded, they can mean nothing at all.
Take for example America’s Bill of Rights, which was passed into law in 1791. Nearly 230 years later, lawmakers still argue about what many of the phrases mean. For example, there is a never-ending debate about the Second Amendment’s phrase, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Laws require definitions, and as the US deals with the surge of antisemitic crimes, Congress needs to adapt a clear and binding definition of what antisemitism means.
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), an inter-government organization with more than 30 member countries, including the US, UK, Germany and Israel, developed and adopted the following definition of antisemitism in 2016:
“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.”
Along with this definition the IHRA provided 11 useful examples of what constitutes antisemitism. The full list of examples can be found on the website of the US State Department (state.gov/defining-anti-semitism), which uses the IHRA wording as its working definition of antisemitism.
In its explanation of the above definition, the IHRA says, “Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.”
This becomes a very important statement as many antisemitic activists hide behind the terms anti-Israel, or anti-Zionist. Guided by this definition, Congress would have the power to label actions of certain academics, NGOs and even their own members as antisemitic. Subsequently, organizations that fall under the antisemitic label would stand to lose funding and face possible legal penalties.
Another example of antisemitism accompanying the IHRA definition states, “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.”
For millennia, Jewish communities collectively have been assaulted, prosecuted and even killed because of the perceived, often wrongful, actions of individual Jews. Even worse, there have been countless examples of blaming the Jewish community for false accusations.
Historical examples of groundless accusations that have led to the persecution of Jews include the blood libel, in which Jews were accused of drinking the blood of Christian children. Another involves the use of a forged document, such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, to label Jews global puppet masters.
Unfortunately, one does not need to look far into history to find these patterns. In late April, New York City
Mayor Bill de Blasio, when responding to a massive funeral in a Hasidic community tweeted, “My message to the Jewish community, and all communities, is this simple: The time for warnings has passed. I have instructed the NYPD to proceed immediately to summons or even arrest those who gather in large groups.”
The mayor’s threat clearly passed the antisemitic litmus test in the beginning of this paragraph when he blamed NYC’s 1.5 million Jews for the actions of a few.
The IHRA’s definition of antisemitism is currently being used by multiple agencies and in many counties that are members of the IHRA. By adopting this definition, the US Congress will be sending a clear and direct message that the American people that they are serious about taking on the threat of antisemitism. I urge members of Congress to move swiftly and decisively on this important humanitarian issue.
The writer emigrated from the Soviet Union to the US in 1989. He is the co-founder of the Jewish Parent Academy whose articles have appeared in many publications including the New York Daily News.