Why WI Gov. Evers should veto this definition of antisemitism | Opinion

Wisconsin's Legislature, like other states and federal bodies, has just adopted International Holocaust Remembrance Association (IHRA) working definition on antisemitism. Gov. Tony Evers should veto it.

There is underway a powerful and well-funded campaign spanning the country to codify this definition of antisemitism. Doing so creates more problems than it solves. The definition is overbroad, vague and permits speech critical of a foreign government's policies or conduct in warfare to be mischaracterized as motivated not by moral concerns but by animus.

Working definition of antisemitism is full of holes

Like a wheel of Swiss cheese, the working definition is full of holes. Consider one of its illustrative examples, according to which defining Israel as a "racist endeavor" ipso facto constitutes antisemitism. As the MAGA movement has taken aim at American history — trying to enshrine a sanitized, revisionist version free from the taint of enslavement and centuries of persecution of Black people — this instinct is especially dangerous. Israel's beleaguered historians and documentary filmmakers can attest to the impediments their government has placed in the way of critical scholarship and artistic inquiry into the state's founding.

Letters: Our Constitution says 'We the People,' Not 'Me, Donald Trump'

It doesn't take a great leap of imagination to get from IHRA's verbiage to a similar crackdown on critical inquiry into these topics in Wisconsin.

The definition's examples raise other red flags, for instance, defining as prejudice the application to Israel of a double standard. Of course, most social sciences contend with the problem of double standards. This also happens to be the favored defense of human rights violators everywhere to deflect and deflate critiques of their unlawful conduct.

Charges of discrimination and self-hatred were weaponized

I've seen these cynical abuses play out in real life, including last year as a legal fellow at the Association for Civil Rights in Israel fighting for civil liberties and human rights in Israeli courts. I saw how such charges of discrimination and self-hatred were weaponized to shield bad actors —including perpetrators of grave violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention — from accountability.

I was at Israel's Supreme Court when ACRI argued its case demanding the Israel Prison Service to end its policy of providing starvation rations to Palestinian security detainees. Israel's incendiary Minister of the Interior, Itamar Ben-Gvir , boasted openly of this cruelty. In the face of our constitutional arguments (that Israeli and international law required the state to provide everyone in its custody adequate nutrition, regardless of their alleged crimes) the minister and his minions (some armed) hurled epithets — toward us, ACRI's attorneys, and the justices: "traitors," "haters of Israel", "anti-Semites" and worse. (The Court ruled in our favor).

Such warnings are not new. Publicly and repeatedly authors of the IHRA working definition have pointed out that it was never intended to serve as a legal standard and will foreseeably generate messy, unjust outcomes. Luckily, IHRA isn't the only game in town. Scholars and community leaders have offered alternatives designed to minimize harms to free expression and protect the integrity of academic institutions and free inquiry.

Though the version of the law the Legislature has passed disclaims conflicts with the First Amendment, the principle of free expression — and a century of jurisprudence that has been developed to sort through tough issues of what is and what is not protected political speech — is precisely what is at risk here.

Enshrining definition will cause harm, not protect Jews

One irony is that enshrining this definition will end up harming, not protecting Jews disproportionately subject to its misuse. A recent study shows that a whopping 61% — a near supermajority — of American Jews understand Israel to have committed war crimes against Palestinians in Gaza. Nearly 40% believe that its conduct there amounts to genocide. This law requires state officials to treat expression of such beliefs as potentially tantamount to hate speech.

That surely cannot be Evers' hope.

Amid Donald Trump's extravagant assault on institutions of higher education, as a recent graduate of an institution in the crosshairs of Trump's vendettas, I am pained to see American Jews' legitimate fears exploited — with great effect — by the far-right to effectuate its all-out assault. As a student at Columbia, I saw my fair share of problematic speech on campus — from both sides of a deep divide. Not once was this definition helpful in resolving borderline instances. Instead, external efforts to enshrine it used to silence critics of Israel's war in Gaza, deny students due process, demonize legitimate, if strident protest — and justify the detention and deportation of student activists.

Law offers foothold for newfangled McCarthyism

Bad faith actors have wielded accusations of antisemitism to dismantle academic independence and discipline civic society, and foist federal superintendence upon private institutions, including at my alma mater , Columbia. This law offers a foothold for this newfangled McCarthyism in Wisconsin. Evers need not invite them in.

Opinion: Federal organ donor 'reforms' proposal puts patients at risk

This law will not affect whether more or fewer Wisconsinites espouse antisemitic views or boldly oppose this prejudice. Signing this bill into law will implicate how we as Wisconsinites approach the highly charged debates over foreign wars and inclusion of minority communities, within the dictates of our Constitution.

Americans don't want to be muzzled in our political debates. We cherish our right to redress grievances, to air protest in the public square, and to pursue free inquiry in our esteemed institutions. Israel has endeavored to muzzle its critics; Evers should not offer a hand to those who wish to take us down that path.

Harry Reis is a graduate of Columbia Law School and a legal fellow at Wisconsin's Law Forward. He previously served as a fellow at the Association for Civil Rights in Israel and as a visiting research scholar at Tel Aviv University Buchmann Faculty of Law.

This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: WI shouldn't adopt IHRA's working definition of antisemitism | Opinion