Why the definition of antisemitism used by a state panel is controversial

SPRINGFIELD — Some Jewish residents in Western Massachusetts are taking issue with a definition of antisemitism that a state commission is using and worry it could restrict free speech by conflating criticism of Israel with hatred toward Jews.

They recently launched a campaign, protesting with lawn signs that call on Sen. John Velis, D-Westfield and a co-chair of the commission, to "support free speech."

But others in the region's Jewish community disagree with them and support the commission's choice. They and Velis say it does allow for both free speech and the criticism of Israel's government.

For the last year, the Special Commission on Combating Antisemitism in the Commonwealth has been working to investigate rising antisemitism and make recommendations to address it. Antisemitic hate crimes rose by 20% in 2024 in the state, according to the commission.

In August, the commission released a preliminary report and recommendations for K-through-12 education.

The special commission's preliminary report recommends that the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education's training and education around antisemitism should be informed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of antisemitism. It was endorsed by the state in 2022 under Gov. Charlie Baker.

"Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews," the definition reads. "Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities."

Antisemitism can be "targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity," it says. "However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic."

It includes a list of straightforward examples of antisemitism, like denying the Holocaust and making dehumanizing remarks about Jewish people.

There also are other examples critics take issue with. Amnesty International has said some protected critical speech can be erroneously labeled as antisemitic under some examples. These include: "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" and "applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation." The organization says the definition "has been used to stifle debate and criticism of the Israeli government's human rights record."

The American Civil Liberties Union has made similar criticisms of those examples.

Mattea Kramer, a local Jewish resident who is part of the campaign raising concerns, pointed to an example of the definition that she thinks can restrict free speech: "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis." Kramer pointed to a United Nations commission of inquiry that declared Israel had committed genocide in Gaza. The same U.N. commission said Hamas committed war crimes and broke international law in its attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.

Given that example of antisemitism under the definition, Kramer worries that students could be afraid to criticize Israel and talk about genocide in Gaza.

"That is really dangerous for our democracy in our schools," she said. "The effect is to chill free speech."

Rabbi Shahar Colt, of Congregation Ahavas Achim in Westfield, shared similar thoughts in the campaign's statement.

"Our government's role should be to protect the civil rights and freedom of speech of all residents. These protections are what made the United States a safe haven for Jews and people of other backgrounds for generations, and upholding these rights should be a priority for all of us."

Kenneth Stern, director the Center for the Study of Hate at Bard College, was a lead writer of the alliance's definition, and he since said it's been weaponized to stifle free speech .

"Many pro-Israel Jewish groups eventually weaponized the definition to suppress student speech and to go after faculty for what they said, materials included in their courses, and speakers they invited to campus," Stern wrote in an essay last month .

Velis called the campaign's allegations "reckless" and "irresponsible" in a written statement Friday.

"To even respond to this release would be to give merit to baseless allegations and outright falsehoods that are exactly the opposite of the dialogue and facts that have taken place over the past year and a half with the commission, from my very first remarks on the Senate floor on the amendment creating this commission to my remarks during our meeting just yesterday, not to mention the extensive dialogue my office and I have personally had with these folks throughout the commission process," Velis wrote.

The commission's other co-chair, Rep. Simon Cataldo, D-Concord, declined to comment on the campaign's statement.

The state commission writes in a long footnote in its preliminary report that it heard "a significant volume of input from the public, in support of and in opposition to using the IHRA definition," with the concerns centering around suppression of criticism of Israel as a state.

"The Special Commission reiterates here, as the commissioners have done publicly throughout the 9 public meetings held thus far," it continues, "that criticism of Israel's government, even harsh and uncomfortable criticism of Israel's government, cannot be regarded as antisemitic in and of itself."

Velis reiterated that point at a commission hearing on Thursday afternoon at Kerem Shalom Synagogue in Concord, and he highlighted the importance of preserving freedom of speech.

Rabbi Amy Wallk, of Temple Beth El in Springfield, said she supports the commission's work and the IHRA definition.

"Nobody says you can't criticize Israel," she said. "I criticize the government of Israel a lot."

She spoke before the commission earlier this year.

"What I object to is questioning whether the state has a right to exist," she said. "The Jewish people's connection to the land of Israel is thousands of years old."

Adam Solender, interim CEO of the Jewish Federation of Western Massachusetts, shared similar thoughts.

"In general, I would say the commission is not promoting censorship," he said. Many states have adopted or endorsed the same working definition of antisemitism, and having a specific definition is really important to fix a problem, he said.

"Anti-Israel discourse is not inherently antisemitic," Solender said, but in his opinion can be and often is.

The special commission's final report is due to the clerks of the House of Representatives and Senate by the end of November.

Read the original article on MassLive . Add MassLive as a Preferred Source by clicking here .