The United States House of Representatives has overwhelmingly passed a bill that would expand the federal definition of anti-Semitism, despite opposition from civil liberties groups.
The bill passed the House on Wednesday by a margin of 320 to 91, and it is largely seen as a reaction to the ongoing antiwar protests unfolding on US university campuses. It now goes to the Senate for consideration.
If the bill were to become law, it would codify a definition of anti-Semitism created by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
IHRA’s working definition of anti-Semitism is “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”.
According to the IHRA, that definition also encompasses the “targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity”.
The group also includes certain examples in its definition to illustrate anti-Semitism. Saying, for instance, that “the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” would be deemed anti-Semitic under its terms. The definition also bars any comparison between “contemporary Israeli policy” and “that of the Nazis”.
Rights groups, however, have raised concerns the definition nevertheless conflates criticism of the state of Israel and Zionism with anti-Semitism.
In a letter sent to lawmakers on Friday, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) urged House members to vote against the legislation, saying federal law already prohibits anti-Semitic discrimination and harassment.
“Instead, it would likely chill free speech of students on college campuses by incorrectly equating criticism of the Israeli government with anti-Semitism.”
I’m a little confused why this is in the news. First off, it’s just a House Resolution. It’s has no legally binding repercussions. It’s basically the House of Representatives as a group making a statement: “We don’t like anti-Semitism”. The definition of anti-Semitism they decided to point to is the thing that’s really in contention. But again, this affects nobody but the US House of Representatives.
Secondly, the vote on this took place in December. So it seems kind of late to be raging over it.
Full text of the resolution: https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hres894/BILLS-118hres894ih.pdf
Summary of action: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/894/all-info
If you’re in the US and it really bugs you, I’d suggest looking up how your district representative voted and let them know how you feel about it.
I have contacted all my reps several times about Palestine and cease fire and the only response has been that they fully support Israel against the terrorists. They don’t care about our opinion.
Get it in writing and share it
Democracy amirite
No, this definitely seems different and new from all the recent articles about it I’ve seen. This vote passed Wednesday, not in December. It’s a response to the protests at universities. And it’s a bill, so it can be passed into law. I think you’re confusing two different things.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/house-passes-bill-to-expand-definition-of-antisemitism-amid-growing-campus-protests-over-gaza-war/ar-AA1nZV5S
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/70-house-democrats-and-21-republicans-voted-against-a-bill-to-crack-down-on-antisemitism-on-college-campuses/ar-AA1o02Rn
This expands the definition of antisemitism to bring critical of Israel at all or comparing Zionism to Nazism, and would codify it into law if it, passes the Senate and is signed by the President. So there is still time to stop this, and it’s a big deal, so people should be angry about it.
Honestly, this was a helpful comment. And now I am super extra charged to vote Jimmy Gomez out.
First, all House bills are “resolutions”. That’s just the name.
Second, wrong bill. We’re talking about HR 6090: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090
The scope is a bit more limited that what you might have heard on the news. Specifically it only instructs the Department of Education to use the broad definition when “reviewing or investigating complaints of discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance”. No other scenarios.
But it’s still bad, and could be used as a step to apply the overly-broad definition elsewhere.
There are bills (HBxxx) that are different from resolutions (HRxxx). But my bad if I was looking at the wrong thing. I was following links through from the story and wound up at that one.