This is why the NJ Legislature must redefine anti-Semitism | Opinion
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
Anti-Semitic incidents have been on the rise in New Jersey. Condemnation of all forms of Jew-hatred is necessary and important, but not enough. Education and dialogue are needed to address Jew-hatred in New Jersey. To be able to truly engage in education and dialogue to combat such bigotry, the State of New Jersey needs to adopt a definition of anti-Semitism.
In May 2022, S2434/A3882 was introduced in the New Jersey State Legislature, which would establish the definition of anti-Semitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (“IHRA”) in 2016 as the State’s definition of anti-Semitism. The IHRA defines anti-Semitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” S2434/A3882 recognizes that the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism “has been an essential definitional tool used to determine contemporary manifestations of anti-Semitism, and includes useful examples of discriminatory anti-Israel acts that cross the line into anti-Semitism.”
S2434/A3882 provides that:
" ...the term “definition of anti-Semitism” refers to the definition adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance on May 26, 2016, including the 'contemporary examples of antisemitism,' while noting that criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country shall not be considered anti-Semitic."
As for “contemporary examples of antisemitism”, the IHRA provides that:
"... Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
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.
Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
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.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel."
Opponents of this bill may assert that this legislation, if adopted, will curb their constitutional right to free speech and claim that it will be utilized to deem any criticism they may express about Israel as anti-Semitic. A reading of S2434/A3882 clearly shows that such an assertion is patently untrue. S2434/A3882 states that:
"... Nothing contained in this act … shall be construed to diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, or paragraph 6 of Article I of the New Jersey State Constitution. Nothing in this act shall be construed to conflict with local, State, or federal anti-discrimination laws or regulations."
As for how New Jersey will utilize the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, S2434/A3882 provides that:
".. In reviewing, investigating, or deciding whether there has been a violation of any policy, law, or regulation prohibiting discriminatory acts, the State shall take into consideration this definition of anti-Semitism for purposes of determining whether the alleged act was motivated by anti-Semitic intent."
New Jersey’s adoption of the IHRA’s definition, as stated in S2434/A3882, “will increase understanding of the parameters of contemporary anti-Jewish crime and discrimination.” Considering the rise of anti-Semitism throughout New Jersey, and the need for education and dialogue to combat this bigotry, the state Legislature must adopt S2434/A3882, and Gov. Phil Murphy needs to make it law.
Edina Brown and Norma Vargas-Greenberg are co-chairs of the Middlesex Black-Jewish Coalition. Josh Fine is advocacy chair of the Middlesex Black Jewish Coalition.
This article originally appeared on NorthJersey.com: This is why the NJ Legislature must redefine anti-Semitism
