OPINION:
Last Thursday, Rep. Anthony D’Esposito, New York Republican, introduced the Define to Defeat Act, which clarifies the definition of antisemitism for federal anti-discrimination laws, solving an equal protection problem that has long plagued the Jewish community.
Because Jewish identity is so multifaceted, without a standard definition for authorities to reference when analyzing the intent behind illegal, discriminatory actions, it is easy for antisemites to hide behind this ambiguity and commit unlawful acts against Jews with impunity.
The bill solves that problem by requiring the relevant authorities to consider, as contextual rebuttable evidence, the gold-standard International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, or IHRA, definition of antisemitism when assessing the motivation behind already unlawful behavior if there is an allegation that the target was chosen because of an aspect of their Jewish identity.
It is no secret that antisemitism has spiked by roughly 400% across the country since Oct. 7 — including in Mr. D’Esposito’s home state of New York — but it is also no surprise; sadly, there is a remarkably predictable uptick in incidents of anti-Jewish hate almost every time there is a conflict in the Middle East.
What was surprising was how quickly the veneer of “anti-Zionism” was shattered this time by open expressions of enraged antisemitism directed toward innocent American Jews and their property, toward Jewish community institutions, and even religious facilities.
On campuses across the country, between hiding from mobs in the library, avoiding dining halls because of death threats, and removing Nazi symbols from Chabad houses, Jewish students have been subjected to campaigns that employ classic antisemitic tropes (ranging from claims of dual loyalty to outright blood libel) and calls for them to be removed from campus if they dare to identify as Zionists — which the vast majority of Jewish people do.
There can be no clearer demonstration than the events of the last six months as to why the IHRA definition includes examples of antisemitic anti-Zionism, such as holding Jews “collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel,” among modern manifestations of anti-Jewish hate.
Just like it is racial or ethnic bias to attack a Chinese person over China’s trade policies and national origin discrimination to fire a Russian because Vladimir Putin ordered the invasion of Ukraine, it is antisemitic to target Jewish people with discriminatory actions because of a real or perceived connection they might have to the Jewish state.
This idea should not be controversial, and it is certainly not partisan; as the White House’s National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism recently stated, “Jewish students and educators are targeted for derision and exclusion on college campuses, often because of their real or perceived views about the State of Israel. When Jews are targeted because of their beliefs or their identity, when Israel is singled out because of anti-Jewish hatred, that is antisemitism. And that is unacceptable.”
Hate speech, no matter how offensive, is protected by the First Amendment. But assault and battery, trespassing, vandalism, breaking and entering, destruction of property, harassment and true threats are all examples of unlawful antisemitic behaviors that have happened in the last few months and that can and should be regulated. As Mr. D’Esposito, a former NYPD officer, makes perfectly clear in his bill, this is not about policing speech. Anyone can say whatever they want, however abhorrent, about Jews or the Jewish state; they cannot unlawfully act on that hate and pretend it is not antisemitism.
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance has been embraced by President Biden, former Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump, 36 U.S. states, and dozens of other countries — not to mention the vast majority of Jews across every spectrum. It underwent a comprehensive, decade-plus-long review conducted by a multitude of experts and is the only definition with an actual track record of demonstrable effectiveness in curbing anti-Jewish hate and bigotry.
As it relates to this act, the IHRA definition of antisemitism also contains the appropriate caveats and carefully balanced safeguards that take into account the importance of nuance and context in situations that involve allegations of discriminatory intent.
For example, the definition makes clear that criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic and that all of the examples are not meant to be dispositive but rather are the types of things that could, taking into account the overall context, be evidence of antisemitism.
The Define to Defeat Act builds on the bipartisan momentum created by Rep. Mike Lawler’s Antisemitism Awareness Act, which would codify Executive Order 13899 and require the Department of Education to make use of the IHRA definition when assessing unlawful discriminatory behavior under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
Mr. Lawler, who has long been a leader on this issue, was working on that bill well before Oct. 7. Since that time, however, it has unfortunately only become clearer that the Jewish community needs the protections clarified in other contexts as well. Hopefully, that bipartisan support will continue; it is hard to imagine someone being supportive of Jewish people being properly protected under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act but not, for example, under Title VII of that same law.
According to the FBI, the majority of religiously motivated hate crimes in the United States are committed against Jewish people. That number is on the rise despite the fact that Jews make up only about 2% of the population. This trend is terrifying, and there is much work to be done to defeat it.
That work starts with defining the problem, and God willing, Congress, led by the members from New York, will now do that.
• Mark Goldfeder is director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.