Palestinian advocates: NJ Legislators must #RejectIHRA view of anti-Semitism | Opinion

Cherishing Human rights, dignity and respect for others is an ethos we must all strive to embrace. As Martin Luther King Jr. famously stated in his 1963 Letter from a Birmingham Jail, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” This critical reflection emerged from a style of grassroots organizing which called on everyday people to commit themselves to the struggle for freedom, justice and equality. These sentiments were later echoed by Fannie Lou Hamer, who unapologetically taught that “nobody’s free until all are free,” a notion which emphasized the interconnectedness of all human beings under the sun.

Now, in the State of New Jersey, there’s an ongoing effort to legally define anti-Semitism — legislation has been proposed in both the Assembly and the state Senate: A3882, S2434, AJR211, and SJR113. On the surface, it may seem like a no-brainer to support legislation which aims to protect people against bigotry and hatred. Without a doubt, targeted violence or harassment directed toward any specific group of people or community should be taken quite seriously and wholeheartedly denounced. However, each of these bills share a common characteristic which compromises their integrity: the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism and its related examples.

The IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is widely disputed and considered problematic for a number of reasons. First and foremost, the majority of the examples listed include direct references to the state of Israel. For instance, “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” falls into the category of anti-Semitism according to the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. Meanwhile, several human rights and civic society organizations have exposed Israel’s treatment of Palestinians as unjust. In fact, Amnesty International recently published a 280-page report called “Israel’s Apartheid Against Palestinians: A Cruel System of Domination and Crime Against Humanity,” which condemns the state of Israel for maintaining a violent system of oppression. Examples of injustices include forced displacement and dispossession, unlawful killings and serious injuries, denial of basic rights and freedoms and persecution.

In March 2022, the American Association of University Professors Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure released a statement which described IHRA legislation as an attempt to “expand the definition of antisemitism to encompass political speech, with several discriminatory effects.”

The AAUP emphasized “the defeat of these legislative initiatives and others of their kind in order to protect the academic freedom that is vital to the preservation of democracy.”

Similar pushback to the IHRA definition and related examples ensued shortly after when 128 leading scholars of anti-Semitism from across the United States, Israel and Europe warned United Nations policymakers about the “divisive and polarizing” nature of the IHRA definition: “Ample evidence shows that these examples are being weaponized to discredit and silence legitimate criticism of Israel’s policies as antisemitism.”

Most recently, in January, the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights declined to adopt the IHRA definition despite significant pressure from pro-Israel advocates.

It’s important to keep in mind that when Palestinian advocates criticize Israel, we are not critiquing Judaism and the Jewish identity. Jewish people have always been a part of Palestine’s history and were equal citizens side-by-side with Palestinian Muslims and Christians before the inception of Israel. Instead, we are challenging and opposing Zionism, which is a nationalist political ideology that privileges one group of people over another and is grounded in white-supremacist and colonial logic.

In her debut memoir, “They Called Me A Lioness: A Palestinian Girl’s Fight for Freedom,” Ahed Timimi explains: “Zionism is the ideology that says that historic Palestine must be a country for [Israeli] Jews only. Zionism is what led to the dispossession of our land, which continues to be seized and occupied.”

If the state of New Jersey adopts the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, it will legally suppress the voices and advocacy of local Palestinian populations, in addition to non-Palestinian human rights advocates who rightfully express criticisms of Israel as a result of the occupation abroad. The reality is that New Jersey is home to a vibrant Palestinian-American population and multicultural landscape which thrives alongside diversity and inclusion. Just last year, thousands of New Jersey residents came together to rename a busy section of Main Street in South Paterson to “Palestine Way” in honor of the contributions by Palestinian-Americans. Palestinian youth are also integral members of various New Jersey universities and educational institutions such as Rutgers University, Drew University and William Paterson University, where they create and sustain spaces of critical thought, reflection, and solidarity. For these reasons, we reject the false choice between standing up against anti-Palestinian racism and anti-Semitism. We believe fighting against anti-Palestinian racism and anti-Semitism go hand-in-hand, and to mislead policymakers into this false choice threatens our collective safety.

Palestine Legal, the leading organization dedicated to protecting the rights of people in the US who speak out for Palestinian freedom, underscores that “IHRA has become an instrument of censorship in a context where speech on Palestine is already widely suppressed.”

Stephanie Fox, the executive director of Jewish Voice for Peace reiterates this point as well:

“At a time when violent white nationalism poses a grave threat to Jewish people, Muslim people, Black people and all people of color, we require bold action to build real safety for all of our communities. Instead, our elected representatives are considering the controversial IHRA definition, which shields the Israeli government from accountability by censoring Palestinians and advocates for Palestinian rights. Make no mistake: Legislating the IHRA definition is not about Jewish safety. The only thing it secures is impunity for decades of violating international law and trampling on Palestinian human rights.”

Therefore, members of the New Jersey Legislature should not allow this legislation to pass unless the IHRA definition and related examples are removed altogether. We encourage readers to sign this petition to tell New Jersey legislators that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism. This effort is sponsored by Jews for the Palestinian Right of Return; Al Awda New York/New Jersey (The Palestine Right to Return Coalition); American Muslims for Palestine — New Jersey; the Council on American-Islamic Relations — New Jersey; Jewish Voice for Peace — Central New Jersey, the Palestinian American Community Center; Students for Justice in Palestine and others.

Jason Ajiake is the advocacy and community outreach xoordinator at the Palestinian American Community Center in Clifton.

Rania Mustafa is the executive director of the Palestinian American Community Center.

Abire Sabbagh is the Palestine education director at the Palestinian American Community Center.

This article originally appeared on NorthJersey.com: NJ Palestinian-Americans views on anti-Semitism definitions