The Rabbinical Alliance of America/ Igud HaRabbonim, representing over 950 American rabbis, adopts the positions outlined by our esteemed member, Rabbi Benjamin G. Kelsen, esq., who submitted this in testimony before the State Government, Wagering, Tourism & Historic Preservation Committee of the Senate of the State of New Jersey on June 20, 2024:

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today in support of bills S1292 and S2937. I have lived in the Teaneck area for most of my life. As an Orthodox rabbi, practicing attorney, and someone involved in numerous communal activities and projects on the local and national levels, many of my personal and professional endeavors have involved addressing antisemitism. I appreciate the opportunity to address this important issue with you today.

We are here today to discuss the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism for use in New Jersey. This would follow the example of numerous countries, states, public entities, and universities. Since 2016, over 1,100 separate governments, NGOs and other key institutions have specifically adopted the IHRA definition.

Before going any further, I believe it is important to point out that the use of the IHRA definition has broad, bipartisan support. At a time when political divisiveness has caused more conflict in the United States than at any time since the Civil War, bipartisanship is extremely rare. And yet, support for codifying the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism has broad, bipartisan support. I thank you and commend you for your willingness to put aside partisan differences to work together on this vital legislation.

In opposition to these bills, we have heard many impassioned and emotionally charged presentations regarding the current war in Gaza, the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and opinions regarding the way Israel defends itself. We have heard about White colonialism, apartheid states, and the truly distressing consequences of war. Horrific and false allegations, displaying a completely incorrect recitation of “facts” and inaccurate applications of legal terminology have been made against Israel, many made by numerous people speaking before this committee. Some of them may be well-meaning, speaking only out of ignorance, influenced by the propaganda spread by terrorist organizations and their supporters. Many, sadly, are not and their seething hatred is palpable in their presentations. Their comments constitute a blatant attempt on the part of terrorists and antisemites to use smoke and mirrors to continue the deception that is the basis of the harassment and persecution of Jews. But we must be clear. Hamas, the terrorist group that occupies Gaza, is dedicated to the murder of all Jews in Israel , a goal spelled out in its charter, the end to the Jewish state and the creation of an Islamic state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Any justification and/or support for Hamas is a justification and support for the indiscriminate murder of Jews.

However, even if all of these presentations were true, which they are not, it would not matter. When assessing a legal issue, we must put aside emotion and assess the situation from an objective and clear-headed manner.

Contrary to the complaints of some, these bills simply do not create new laws or a protected class. These bills do not infringe upon anyone’s First Amendment rights by penalizing or restricting anyone’s right to free expression. As has been noted, the language explicitly states that “Nothing contained in this bill is to be construed to diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Therefore, as a matter of law, enacting these bills will have zero effect on those who wish to simply express anti-Zionist or antisemitic feelings, beliefs, or ideologies.

Rather, these bills are intended to establish an objective definition of contemporary antisemitism in order to: (1) clarify the application of already existing laws protecting against unlawful conduct; (2) ensure that incidents of antisemitic hate and bias are treated equally under the law; (3) provide officials and institutions with proper definitional tools for assessing the intent of persons who engage in unlawful activity; (4) ensure that public institutions remain in compliance with federal civil rights obligations; and (5) promote better bias crime reporting and tracking.

Let us be clear, the IHRA definition says explicitly that it is not antisemitic to criticize Israel when the same standards are applied to all countries, nor do the bills criminalize criticism of Israel or create a speech code of any sort. The definition only provides clarity on when anti-Israel speech can cross the line into antisemitism and how that speech should be taken into account when evaluating the possible antisemitic intent of crimes or unlawful discrimination. As long as no crimes are committed, anyone can say or express any belief they choose. While some who oppose these bills may simply be unaware or have a mistaken understanding of the reality, many who are feigning concern about the IHRA definition are doing so in an attempt to hide their antisemitism behind a flimsy mask of “only” being anti-Zionist.

Time is of the essence in passing these bills. In 2023, antisemitic incidents in the United States surged by at least 140%. Incidents of harassment increased by 184%, acts of vandalism rose by 69%, and physical assaults went up by 45%. There were 8,873 antisemitic cases of assault, harassment, and vandalism across the country, representing the highest level recorded since the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) started tracking this data in 1979. In the 3 months between October 7, 2023 and January 7, 2024 there was an average of nearly 34 antisemitic incidents per day totaling 3,291 antisemitic acts. This number includes instances of physical assault, vandalism, verbal or written harassment, and rallies that included antisemitic rhetoric and expressions of support for terrorism against the State of Israel and/or Jews generally. Astoundingly, the 12-month total surpassed that of the past three years combined and averaged about 24 anti-Jewish incidents in the U.S. per day. We cannot afford to wait another day. No other minority group would tolerate such a situation nor would society request of them to do so. It is only when the targets are Jews do we even pause to think if such behavior should be permitted.

The IHRA definition must be accepted because it is a frequent tactic of modern-day antisemitism to exploit the absence of a proper definitional standard to escape culpability. Perpetrators of unlawful acts of antisemitic crime and discrimination often later claim that when attacking Jewish institutions, individuals, or points of Jewish collective identity they were merely expressing “anti-Israel” or “anti-Zionist” sentiments, as has been seen during these hearings. Without a legal definition that identifies antisemitism, incidents of antisemitic crime and discrimination risk being unaddressed and underreported.  This is the reason that bills S1292 and S2937 must be passed immediately.

As we noted previously, there have been many impassioned and emotionally charged presentations regarding the current war in Gaza, the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and opinions regarding the way Israel defends itself. Horrific, false allegations have been made against Israel by numerous people speaking before this committee. Some of those who did so may be well-meaning, speaking only out of ignorance, influenced by the propaganda spread by terrorist organizations and their supporters. Many, sadly, are not and their comments constitute a blatant attempt on the part of terrorists and antisemites to use smoke and mirrors to continue the deception that is the basis of the harassment and persecution of Jews.

But we must be clear. Hamas, the terrorist group that occupies Gaza is dedicated to the murder of all Jews in Israel and throughout the world. This goal is spelled out in its charter: the end to the Jewish state and the creation of an Islamic state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Any justification for Hamas and its actions is a justification for and approval of the indiscriminate murder of Jews.

As stated previously, despite all of the references to the truly sad and terrifying consequences of war, the adoption of the IHRA definition is not about the ongoing conflict in Gaza. However, it must be acknowledged that the war in Gaza would never have started had Hamas not broken an existing ceasefire and invaded Israel on October 7, 2023, raping, beheading, mutilating, kidnapping, and murdering innocent men, women, children, the elderly, and infants. The war would be over immediately if Hamas would release the hostages taken in violation of international law and basic human decency.

Therefore, let us ignore the terrorists’ propaganda and bring focus back to the fundamental issue of the bills that are currently before the committee. As we have stated, contrary to the comments made by most of those who have spoken in opposition to these bills, there is nothing in these bills that imposes any restrictions on free speech. Simply put, these bills do not criminalize any behavior and are not intended as a shield for Israel’s policies and/or actions. To say otherwise is a lie.

Let us now address the specific claims made in opposition to the IHRA definition.

Some who object to the IHRA definition of antisemitism rely on the assertion that one of the numerous people who worked on the definition has stated that it should not be used as a binding legal definition. Cherry picking one position out of context is not an honest way to present an argument. To fully appreciate this claim and why it is disingenuous and false, some background is needed.

Until 2005, most of the monitors of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) lacked any definition of antisemitism that could guide their efforts to accurately track hate crimes. At the same time, amid the Middle East conflict, violent attacks against Jews (some as part of the Palestinian Intifada) were being brushed off as mere political protests. Neither government officials nor law enforcement labeled these aggressions as antisemitic. Starting in 2005, in an attempt to confront rising levels of antisemitism, Ken Stern, an AJC staff member at the time, collected and sorted through definitions of antisemitism from experts around the world. Then, he and a dozen experts around the world, including other AJC staff members, collaborated to reach a consensus definition on which they all agreed. That Working Definition was then presented to and adopted by the EUMC and later adopted in a slightly modified form by IHRA. Since 2016, IHRA built consensus around the definition and adopted it as a tool to help people recognize and address antisemitism. Hundreds of entities from governments and universities to sports clubs and corporations have embraced it as well.

It is true that in 2019 Mr. Stern voiced concerns about using a definition that he says was created solely to help agencies collect data for statutory purposes. However, his opposition was to the definition being used to determine if speech was antisemitic for the purposes of stopping the speech itself. This concern has been addressed in the formulation of the proposed bills and is no longer applicable. Sadly, the concerns Mr. Stern voiced in 2019 have been embraced and repeated by those who seek to discredit the definition in support of ulterior nefarious motives. It is also crucial to note that out of all of those who worked on the definition, Mr. Stern stands out as a lone critical voice among the dozens of experts that contributed to the definition’s creation.

The majority of those opposing the IHRA definition do so because they claim that it punishes or silences criticism of Israel by labeling it as antisemitism. They claim that codifying the definition will “chill” free speech. This claim is a favorite of terrorist organizations, their supporters, other antisemites, and some Jews who feel a sense of discomfort at voicing opinions that are at odds with almost all other Jews.

The claim is blatantly false. In fact, the IHRA Definition expressly recognizes that criticism of Israel, when similar to criticism leveled at other countries, cannot be regarded as antisemitic. The IHRA Definition is very clear with the examples provided and that it is only holding Israel to a double standard, and demonizing and/or delegitimization Israel that is considered antisemitic, not mere criticism. Furthermore, as noted previously, nothing in the IHRA Definition punishes or silences any speech, including speech about Israel, whether antisemitic or not. In fact, many of the statements during these hearings are proof that the right to speech is not being affected.

The objection to the supposed (but not actual) prominence of Israel in the Working Definition is rooted in the anti-Zionist and antisemitic longing to be free to engage in “unfettered demonization, delegitimization, and morally outraged opposition not to the policies of the Jewish state but to the presence of the Jewish state”.  The  “freedom of expression” that is championed by such opponents to the Working Definition is the freedom not to express a viewpoint but rather to incite hatred and violence towards Jews.

Our society generally accepts the premise that each community gets to define its own understanding of oppression and would never expect other minority groups to tolerate the use of terms or phrases which have racist or bigoted origins or which that group perceives to oppressive or offensive. For example, one gender does not get to tell the other what is sexist toward the latter. One group does not have the authority to determine what behaviors or language is racist toward another group. Our society would never impose upon any other minority to accept a definition of discrimination, harassment, or persecution from the perpetrators of such behavior. And yet, in the case of Jews, we are being told that we should accept the determination of what is antisemitism from those who commit acts and espouse ideologies of antisemitism. What would be the public response to an assertion that the LGBTQ+, African-American, or Latino communities should accept the definitions of discrimination from the Far Right, White Supremacists, or America First xenophobes? Antisemitism cannot be taken seriously if the experiences of its primary targets, Jews, are dismissed. If this hatred is not taken seriously, it will continue to grow unchecked. Jews have that same right to define how they experience antisemitism, especially in environments where antisemitic incidents are commonly dismissed. Yet, in an American Jewish Committee survey of young adults, two-thirds said it would make no difference to them if a “Jewish person or organization considered a statement or idea to be antisemitic.” This must change.

It is also worth noting here that in modern civilized society, we are constantly on the look-out to make sure that nothing is said or done which will cause others to be hurt or offended. We are taught to be cognizant of the way in which our words are heard by others. We are encouraged to adapt educational curriculums to be more inclusive and less divisive regarding any minority. Chants such as “the South will rise again” or “we will be back” when chanted by White supremacists, or the use of the Confederate flag are taken by many as being a call for a return to the pre-Civil War days of racism and slavery and therefore their use is cautioned or eschewed.  Yet this same basic human decency is not extended to Jews. This is due to antisemitism and should be labeled as such.

Some claim that The IHRA Definition singles out Jews and Israel for special (i.e., privileged) treatment. This is also not true. The IHRA Definition is not a form of special protection or treatment. It provides an understanding of what constitutes an existing form of bigotry and discrimination that can be difficult to identify because of the many different ways it appears. Additionally, bill S2937 addresses antisemitism and islamophobia. This negates any claims that the bills create a special status for Jews.

Another claim that has been put forward is that adoption of the IHRA Definition is specifically meant to harm Palestinians. This is not only false; it is a canard put forth by terrorists and their supporters who wish to confuse and the situation and obfuscate their true motivations and goals. Identifying bigotry or discrimination against one group does not harm any other group. Those who choose to “support” the Palestinian people by engaging in bigoted speech against Jews or Israelis may continue those efforts, as they are permitted to do under the First Amendment. The IHRA Definition may identify some of that speech as antisemitic, but it does nothing to silence or punish that speech. Moreover, the desire of some to engage in bigoted speech is not a reason to shy away from identifying and condemning that speech for what it is, whether it be racism, sexism, or antisemitism, etc.

Some have pointed to the objection of certain phrases such as “From the River to the Sea Palestine will be free” or “Globalize the Intifada” as proof of the IHRA definition’s chilling effect on free speech. Those so concerned can rest easy that their right to chant antisemitic slogans is and will continue to be protected. Though some may naively believe that they are repeating chants calling for peaceful co-existence, these hateful phrases have insidious origins and meanings, which are well known, and cause fear and traumatic responses in most Jews, yet they are still protected speech. What is not protected are criminal acts that may be committed under the color of these phrases.

We have heard from some, including some who identify as Jews, that Zionism is not part of Judaism, rather they submit it is only a political ideology based on racist and colonialist beliefs that originated in the 19th century. This is absolutely not true and is either a knowing revisionist take on history to justify antisemitism or something parroted by those who are ignorant.

Let us be crystal clear: Zionism, a fundamental component of Judaism, is the belief in the almost 4000-year-old dream of the Jewish people to a right of self-determination in our ancestral home, Israel. The prayer for a homeland in Israel is part of the daily prayers said at least three times a day. It is a fundamental part of what it means to be a Jew.  Those attempting to separate Judaism from Zionism are engaged in immoral, dishonest, and hypocritical mental gymnastics to support an antisemitic position. Having token Jews who have divorced themselves from the vast majority of the worldwide Jewish community and the almost 4 millennium-old basic tenets of Judaism does not make their statements honest or true.

Some critics of the IHRA Working Definition, who claim it will stifle free speech or unfairly label critics of Israel as antisemitic, point to two “alternative” definitions, the Jerusalem Declaration and the Nexus Document, and suggest that they be considered instead. These versions, debated and promoted primarily within academic circles, focus almost exclusively on defending anti-Israel and anti-Zionist expressions. They also lack the practical applicability that has made the IHRA Working Definition so useful.

The Jerusalem Declaration largely defines what antisemitism is not, rather than what it is. Attempting to shield any anti-Zionist expression from being labeled as antisemitic, it either minimizes or dismisses altogether those aspects of antisemitism. While asserting (correctly) that antisemitism is a form of racism, it pays scant attention to the unique phenomena that truly defines the world’s oldest hatred.

The Nexus Document promotes a definition of antisemitism that was created by the Nexus Task Force, a project created by the Knight Program on Media and Religion at the Annenberg School of Communication and Journalism at USC. It aims to analyze the issues at the core of antisemitism and Israel in American politics. It is intended to promote debate and discussion among scholars and their students who ponder the meaning of antisemitism. However, with its discursive style, theoretical approach, and self-identified focus on Israel and Zionism, it lacks the clarity and usefulness of the IHRA Working Definition as a pragmatic tool for combating antisemitism.

In conclusion, as we have seen, the IHRA Working Definition of antisemitism is a proven, useful, and effective instrument to identify antisemitism. It is the international standard used to explain antisemitism and thus aids in protecting Jewish communities around the world. It is used by dozens of countries and recommended by multi-governmental organizations such as the United Nations, European, Union, and Organization of American States. Congress, in encouraging Europe to do more to combat the resurgence of antisemitism, supported the extensive adoption and use of the IHRA Working Definition in the Combating European Antisemitism Act of 2017 and has even voted to adopt it for the United States.

Bottom line, the IHRA Working Definition has become the most widely accepted and adopted definition of antisemitism throughout the world. Defining antisemitism is the first, necessary step to combating it. It is vital for protecting Jewish communities, and stepping away from it would threaten the safety and security of Jews around the globe. I urge you to stand against antisemitism and vote “yes” on bills S1292 and S2937.

Thank you,

Benjamin G. Kelsen