Combating hate and protecting free expression are not opposing goals
It was with a mix of disbelief and pain that I read Mattea Kramer’s claims that the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism threatens free speech. The definition is not in any way a speech code; it is a descriptive, nonbinding tool meant to help identify antisemitism in its modern forms. It explicitly protects legitimate criticism of Israeli government policies.
Jews are increasingly subjected to double standards applied to no other nation, while “Zionist” — a word that simply describes belief in Jewish self-determination — has been cynically transformed into a slur. Jews who identify as Zionists are routinely demonized, excluded, and targeted, often under the guise of political critique.
Those fighting the IHRA definition on spurious civil-liberties grounds are not defending free speech — they are defending the right to deny Jews the ability to name and confront the hatred directed at them. Whether intentional or not, this resistance aligns with and fuels antisemitic narratives that have become disturbingly normalized.
Combating antisemitism and protecting free expression are not opposing goals. Suggesting otherwise obscures the real issue and deepens the harm many Jews are already experiencing.
Globe readers have been inundated with references to “antisemitism” in headlines in the past few years. The problem is that it’s simply not clear what the word means.
The definition ranges wildly from 1880s Germanic origins that defined Jews as a separate race to the past 10 years or so, when a data-collection tool, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition, has been used to define certain criticism of Israel as “antisemitism.” Samantha Joseph, of the ADL, and the state’s Special Commission on Combating Antisemitism defend the assessment of “surging” antisemitism based on data using this tool.
If their concern is to protect Jews from hate, federal hate crime laws already provide protection. Anti-Jewish hate is just as bad as anti-Black, anti-Asian, or anti-Palestinian hate.
I can’t imagine their mission is to muster support for Israel. If so, that would be a problem. Surely it is possible for American citizens to condemn what Israel has done to the Palestinians — with massive support from our tax dollars — without hating Jews. Surely Jews can be appalled by Israel’s genocide without hating themselves.
This undefined term “antisemitism” is not making Jews, Israelis, or any of us safer.
The data and facts are frightening. Ostracism, harassment, arson, and violence against Jews, for being Jews, are skyrocketing.
Historically, antisemitism has taken many forms, accusing Jews of being Christ killers, or of threatening racial purity, or of being deceitful and distasteful. The current iteration conceals itself behind hatred of Israel. So, at this time, any reasonable definition of antisemitism must be concerned with views and actions toward Israel.
The internationally recognized International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism and the Massachusetts Special Commission on Combating Antisemitism’s references to that definition detail clearly what constitutes antisemitism. They affirm as well the need to distinguish between antisemitism and legitimate criticism of Israel.
Mattea Kramer of the organization Jewish Voice for Peace is worried that in class discussions about Gaza, teachers and students voicing opinions “could be accused of antisemitism.” But this concern should not lead to dismissing the state commission’s conclusions because of their attention to Israel, or because, inevitably, there are gray areas.
