Congress is Banning Free Speech Critical of Israel but Hate Speech About Palestinians is Still OK.

The Danger of the "Antisemitism Awareness Act" is in its vagueness

“If we don’t believe in freedom of speech for those we despise, then we don’t believe in freedom of speech”

~Noam Chomsky

No matter what your view is on Israel and Gaza, no matter what you think about the protests, this new bill should send chills down your spine. The “Antisemitism Awareness Act” is a bipartisan bill that has been approved by the House and a vote is soon expected in the Senate. H.R. 6090 states that a weakness of the Civil Rights Act is its lack of protections for religious identity. The bill advocates for religious protection but only for how it relates to antisemitism. No other religions are mentioned under this act. The bill states that additional antisemitic protections should be codified based on the definition of antisemitism set by The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).

I’m going to clarify before going any further. I do not deny that there is legitimate antisemitism in this world, or any other form or racism, sexism, for that matter. I’ve witnessed it myself, with my own eyes and ears. I’m a non-observant, non-practicing Jew who has been told “Tell me the truth about the Jewish conspiracy you belong to”. I’ve also had Holocaust deniers confront me from all sorts of angles. I’ve had epithets thrown at me. One person gave me a lecture about how cheap the Jews are, only to say a few sentences later how the Jews are buying up the world. I remember asking him “Are Jews cheap or are they buying up the world? Both can’t be true”. I only received a blank look in return.

I part ways when antisemitism is applied to criticizing Israeli foreign policy. I object to the Zionist movement. I object to AIPAC having so much pull over the United States, and the dysfunction it causes. The relationship results in the United States making decisions that are not in its own interests and almost certainly not in Israeli interests either. I object to the massacre in Gaza. Since I cannot rationally be called an antisemite for holding these views, I get called a “self-hating Jew”. This term implies a deep seeded mental illness or neurosis. What does it really mean? It’s an ad-hominin attack to avoid discussing actual issues.

This new act takes the definition from the IHRA and turns it into federal law. The problem is that the definition and its illustrations were never intended as legal terms. They are vague, non-descript guidelines. The Author of the IHRA guidelines, Kenneth Stern, was aghast that his definition has been exploited as speech code and legal grounds to censor student’s rights to free expression. The IHRA website even uses the phrase “non-binding” in several places. As Stern said recently in an interview with the New Yorker:

“[it] was not drafted, and was never intended, as a tool to target or chill speech on a college campus.”

The bill, in effect equates criticizing Israel’s policies with antisemitism and turns it into a federal violation. This allows Israel a privilege that no other country has: freedom from criticism and accountability. This is a purely a weaponization of antisemitism and an insult to the true meaning of the word. The past has shown that these types of laws create more hatred and anger towards the groups they were intended to protect.

To enforce the bill, the government will be given the power to investigate educational institutions for non-compliance. If an institution is found to be in violation, their federal funding can be halted. Given the ambiguity of the wording, universities can be charged in a way where they can’t defend themselves. This may have serious ramifications as they will have no choice but to ban free speech on campus. Leveraging funding to demand obedience is purely an authoritarian behavior. Even if criticizing Israel is hate speech, which it’s not, it would still be covered under the First Amendment.

Reading between the lines, the act boils down to a threat to universities: Watch the Israel dialog on campus or risk losing federal funding.

The guidelines of the of IHRA states:

On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to:

Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism:

“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.”

Notice the disclaimer: “non-legally binding working definition”. Most concerning are the illustrations that provide examples of how the definition can be applied. Some of them are murky and troubling:

“Manifestations 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”

The words “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country” is amorphous. This could easily apply to college protests since the focus is only on Israel’s actions. The US role of funding and arming Israel is also a target, but the bill is focused on protestors speaking against Israel.

“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”

Is saying that Israel is “killing Palestinians” accusing Israel of racism? Is standing up for Palestinian rights accusing Israel of racism? How about describing the war in terms of “ethnic cleansing” or “genocide”?

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

This is so nebulous that it’s frightening to even think about how it can be applied. As we see in the media, anyone can make the Nazi accusation without repercussions.

The ACLU has written a response condemning the act:

“Addressing rising antisemitism is critically important, but sacrificing American’s free speech rights is not the way to solve that problem. This bill would throw the full weight of the federal government behind an effort to stifle criticism of Israel and risks politicizing the enforcement of federal civil rights statutes precisely when their robust protections are most needed. The Senate must block this bill that undermines First Amendment protections before it’s too late.”

The Jewish oriented news site, The Tablet, published an article called “Not in Our Name”. This article calls for those of the Jewish faith to reject the “Antisemitism Awareness Act”.

“Politicians are using the rise in antisemitism as an excuse to curtail free speech and expand their own power. Jews must not let them.”

No chills down your spine yet? Try this one:

There is a bizarre and insane bill by NY Congressmen Ritchie Torres allowing (or requiring?) the Department of Education to place “third party antisemitism monitors in place” for universities that receive federal funding. Turning Americans against each other sounds right out of the Soviet era playbook.

The “moral mob mentality” is taking over. This becomes a contest to see who can think up the most defaming term to describe a person or group. Each term has to surpass the shock value of the previous term. Protestors have become antisemites, Nazis and terrorists. It’s hard to even think what could come next.

Notice however, that it’s still acceptable to use the term “Erase Gaza”, and it’s still acceptable for CNN’s Dana Bash to compare anti-war protestors to Nazis. The Palestinian phrase “from the river to the sea”, however, was condemned by the House.

What has happened to our college institutions? For sure they have placed ideology over principle. The government’s threat to arbitrarily remove funding will hang over the universities like the Sword of Damocles. It’s going to create a hypervigilance that will immeasurably worsen the situation. So much for colleges being a “marketplace for ideas”.

How far can this go? Numerous states are advancing laws to outlaw antisemitism, including speaking against Israeli foreign policy. Could individuals be criminally prosecuted for protesting the war? Could they be prosecuted for domestic terrorism? This remains to be seen. With a “moral crisis” and a corresponding mob mentality that has such a tight grip on the West, it would be far from shocking.