Quick Background
Six years ago, the publication Inside Higher Education ran an article about 2018’s version of the Antisemitism Awareness Act and observed,
“anti-Semitism’s manifestations change over time. There is a robust debate, both inside the Jewish community and among experts on the issue, over the relationship between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Sometimes anti-Zionism constitutes anti-Semitism; sometimes it doesn’t.”
Their bifurcation framed antisemitism as a set of definitional issues regarding
- antisemitism directed against the state of Israel as a state, i.e., a sovereign corporate entity, and thereby a diplomatic issue about which the State Department has its own definition, and
- in the education sector, antisemitism directed at individuals, i.e., a civil rights issue under the Department of Education Civil Rights Division’s definition of antisemitism to be used to determine schools’ antidiscrimination legal obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) “to provide all students, including Jewish students, a school environment free from discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, including shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics.” (Note that Title VI does not apply to discrimination based upon religion itself, but applies to race, national origin, and ethnicity which creates confusion in policy. Also note, Title VI applies to institutions which receive federal aid.)
Much comes to mind since the Inside Higher Education article referenced above pointed out the perennial truth that “anti-Semitism’s manifestations change over time.” Today’s manifestation arises from the latest and most vicious war in many years between the state of Israel and Gaza’s Hamas. In the education sphere regulated under Title VI, mass protests grow in intensity and they often mix attacks on Jewish and Palestinian individuals with attacks upon the Jewish state.
How broad or narrow ought antisemitism be defined to maintain reasonable First Amendment free speech rights? And what about the distinction between the diplomatic vs. the personhood definition for federal enforcement purposes? And that definition variance is the rub. What makes this bill so controversial is its reliance on equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism: one is criticism of an entity, the other of a person. Indeed, it’s a categorical error. So, it appears, if the bill passes Senate muster, on-campus criticism of the Jewish state is antisemitic. And the Antisemitism Awareness Act seeks to resolve this by empowering the Education Department to take action against educational institutions that do not sufficiently combat anti-Israel speech on campus where this kind of “diplomatic” free speech ought to be encouraged in order to air out attitudes about countries’ treatment of, for example in Gaza, noncombatant rights.
This round of concern has, of course, arisen as fallout from the ongoing Israel-Palestine war, and the resulting protests roiling campuses. And this is a time of existential crisis for both sides, their disputed homelands up for destruction. The bill, titled the Antisemitism Awareness Act, would mandate that the Education Department adopt a broad definition of antisemitism created by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRM), an intergovernmental group. The group defines antisemitism as a “certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.” The group adds that “rhetorical and physical manifestations” of antisemitism include such things as calling for the killing or harming of Jews or holding Jews collectively responsible for actions taken by the state of Israel. These manifestations are directed at Jewish individuals and ought to be prevented even to the point of shackling free speech rights.
However, as noted above, importantly, the House-adopted definition of antisemitism arguably includes offenses against the Jewish state, ‘‘[d]enying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor,’’ and ‘‘[d]rawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.’’ This is the substance of the Antisemitism Awareness Act. The scope of this expanded definition makes it illegal in an educational setting to merely claim “that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor,” or, if heavily enforced by DOE, to forbid any criticism of, for example, Israel’s brutal conduct of the present conflict. That goes too far, discussions of the behavior of our allies must be free-flowing, particularly in an educational setting.
An Example That Eats the Rule
Interestingly, and counterintuitively, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRM) examples of antisemitic behavior adopted by the House-passed bill contain a limitation:
“However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” [emphasis added]
Is this the exception that eats the rule? After all, most of the present on-campus criticism of Israel is based upon the international laws of war, and the responsibility for treatment of refugees and noncombatants. And isn’t this the same kind of criticism any other country receives in these circumstances, and therefore, according to the definitional section of the Antisemitism Awareness Act itself “cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” That creates confusion, it does not resolve it. Thus, the Antisemitism Awareness Act which is intended to, in large part, prevent criticism of Israel, the sovereign nation, contains a serious internal contradiction provided by the very IHRM definition it seeks to codify. As such, it needs to be considered carefully by the Senate.
MAGA’s Core Antisemitism
As an aside, but an important one, it’s interesting to note the overwhelming support of Republicans for a measure that supports Israel’s stated right to exist as a state. The GOP has not shown itself to be an avid supporter of Jewish causes, particularly since Jewish voters are largely Democratic party voters. Hardly a day goes by when a Marjory Taylor Greene or the erstwhile Kevin McCarthy pins most of the world’s problems on George Soros, in general, or the Rothschild’s Jewish Space Lasers. How there are Jewish Zionist Republicans I’ll never understand.
The MAGA movement (which is, basically, the Republican party at this point) is riddled with proud nazi sympathizers who openly encourage an end to the Israel and to the Jews themselves. Trump himself doesn’t have a clearly stated policy and recently has used antisemitic rhetoric that directly quotes many classic bits of antisemitism, for example, that Jews support Democrats, that they support Israeli interests over American interests. As has been pointed out often, Trump is a “transactional” political actor, so his position may remain forever unknown, but he does know his supporters are primarily and loudly antisemite, singling out both Israel as a country and Jews as individuals.
So here’s how the GOP/MAGA party acolytes voted. Given their widespread antisemitism, one is reminded that Napoleon once remarked,
“In politics, absurdity is not a handicap.”
House Roll Call (go here to view each Member’s vote)
MAY 01, 2024, 04:50 PM | 118TH CONGRESS, 2ND SESSION
| Republican | 187 | 21 | 0 | 9 |
| Democratic | 133 | 70 | 0 | 9 |
| Independent | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |