by Aaron Warner

The recent passing by the U.S. House of Representatives of H.R. 6090, the Anti-semitism Awareness Act, has many Americans concerned about circumvention of our First Amendment.  

The bill would “provide for the consideration of a definition of antisemitism set forth by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance for the enforcement of Federal antidiscrimination laws concerning education programs or activities, and for other purposes.” The IHRA definition of antisemitism can be read on the IRHA website.

The House passed the bill with an overwhelming, bi-partisan majority of 320-91. If passed by the Senate and signed into law by President Biden, the act would appear to catapult Jews into a uniquely special protected class beyond the protections already afforded to other protected classes such as the LGBTQ cohort. Critics argue it would also essentially move key scriptures from the Bible into the category of hate speech. 

Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vermont( voted No, as did many other Progressive Democrats and Conservative Republicans.

In order to consider this amendment fairly, it’s imperative to be able to criticize Israel and even specific Jews, yet that is exactly what this bill aims to prevent. 

In traditional American civic discourse, speech that is considered inaccurate and bigoted is nonetheless protected by the First Amendment. Speech that is uncontroversial and generally agreed-upon needs no constitutional protection. 

Among the critics of the bill in the house are Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky), Marjorie Taylor-Greene (R-Georgia) and Matt Gaetz (R-Florida) who share equal disdain for its unconstitutional language. 

Upon reading the bill I notice several issues, beyond the constitutional paradox it creates.  

Perhaps the most egregious criticism I notice is the bill’s conferring of power to the IHRA, an international NGO (non-government organization).  Who are they?  What they aren’t is elected representatives of our government, nor judges appointed by the executive branch and confirmed by the legislative. Yet our elected representatives have given their “working definition of anti-Semitism” the holy seat for determining American law.  Thus, an international group, with the consent of Congress, would circumvent our sovereignty as a people.  This is like the power given to the World Health Organization to enact global mandates per health crises and the United Nations having international sway over emergency policing.  

The bill essentially gives the power of law to a little-known 2019 executive order by Pres. Donald Trump: 

“(3) On December 11, 2019, Executive Order 13899 extended protections against discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to individuals subjected to antisemitism on college and university campuses and tasked Federal agencies to consider the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism when enforcing title VI of such Act.”

Looking at some of the language of the IHRA’s working definition it begs not only for criticism but clarification. 

1. Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

• This is already law in the United States. 

2. 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.

• Stereotyping is disallowed?  This would make comedy, a hotbed of Jewish art, suddenly verboten.  Mel Brooks would become a felon.  
• Also any effort that includes Jews as a collective, which is odd because Jews are famously proud to work in collectives.  Jews have in fact started major media companies (Warner Brothers, MGM, Fox Film, Universal, Paramount) and, as Alan Dershowitz stated before a crowd of fellow Jews, they should be proud of their acquired power and influence since they earned it. 

AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) is undoubtedly a well-funded political action committee with influence in Washington. A close reading of the IRHA definition could make criticizing the policies of AIPIC out of bounds and potentially even felonious to point out.  Let alone the vague legalese directive of “especially but not exclusively”, which gives open-ended discretion to labeling free speech as anti-Semitic.  

3. 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.
   • At a time when whiteness and the American founding are under attack on a daily basis how is it we should be expected to keep this double-standard? 

4. Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
   • Other Jews have joined non-Jews in this criticism. Again, it is not the role of American law to choose sides or determine historical accuracy, only to allow a free, fair, safe forum for the exchange of ideas.

5. 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.

• Jews such as Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire donor to Donald Trump’s campaign, is on the record stating as much.  In a speech you can see on the internet he states he “regrettably served in the American military rather than Israel’s”.  He is one of many Jews who is an avowed Zionist.  In fact many Zionists by definition regard supreme allegiance to Israel over their country of origin. 

6. 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.
   • I for one believe Israel has the right to exist as a nation in its God-given preset borders so listed in the Bible, however Jews even to this day can be seen citing both Tanach and Talmud and that they are predestined to rule over “the goyim” who are like animals compared to Jews who are the only divinely created beings.  This teaching absolutely deserves exposure and criticism as does any racially superior rhetoric. But neither this teaching nor the exposure of it should be censored by the government.

7. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
   • See no. 3 of this list

8. Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
   • Again, a literal reading of this rule would make numerous passages in the New Testament “anti-Semitic” which is ironic given all of the books in the New Testament are written by Jews. 
9. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
   • So if Israel starts slaughtering thousands of Palestinians one needs to find another comparison, like say Pol Pot? 

10. Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
    • Even if untrue and unfair (and I think it is), it certainly does not rise to the level of felonious law.  

If anything, passing this bill would play into and reinforce the stereotype it argues against.  To enshrine into law a protection delimiting Americans from criticizing a selected group brings to life a quote made famous by a neo-Nazi yet falsely attributed to Voltaire: 

“To know who rules over you simply find out who you’re not allowed to criticize.”  

Thankfully opposition to the bill is being led by Jerry Nadler (D-New York) himself Jewish and a graduate of Columbia University recently besieged by anti-Semitic protesters, because of its assault on free speech.  Even the drafters of IHRA agree it should not be enshrined into law for the same reason.  

Still, the massive support in the House should have all Americans reaching out to their senators to kill this anti-American bill.