The Massachusetts House of Representatives on Wednesday rejected an amendment to the state budget which would have Massachusetts adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism, a definition that equates criticism of Israel with antisemitism, within its law on religious discrimination.
The problem amendment, called “Condemnation of Antisemitism and Adoption of IHRA Definition”, was submitted by Rep. Howitt (R. Seekonk) as amendment #300 to the state budget bill, H.4000.
With only two days to respond before the amendment was considered, Jewish Voice for Peace-Boston, Massachusetts Peace Action, the Alliance for Water Justice in Palestine, and the Unitarian-Universalists for Justice in the Middle East mobilized quickly and contacted representatives and Palestinian rights supporters. Over 400 people wrote to Aaron Michlewitz, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, to other Ways and Means leaders, and to their own representative and senator, warning of the serious damage that would be done by the amendment. Legislators expressed their views as well. One progressive representative, Liz Malia, who had signed on to the amendment thinking it was a legitimate anti-discrimination measure, dropped off the list of supporters once she realized what it really meant. The amendment was then removed by the Ways and Means committee, effectively killing it.
We condemn antisemitism, Islamophobia and all forms of racism. But this amendment is the wrong way to fight anti-Jewish hate.
The IHRA definition is hugely controversial. More than two hundred global experts on antisemitism, holocaust and Jewish studies who signed the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism have repudiated the IHRA definition as inadequate and misleading. They have asked governmental organizations not to sign it. The American Civil Liberties Union, the Centre for Constitutional Rights, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, the National Lawyers Guild, and and other civil rights organizations have condemned it on constitutional grounds. Over two dozen US based Jewish organizations oppose codifying it into law.
The IHRA definition is deceptive. Rather than focusing on right-wing white supremacist attacks on Jews, this definition says promotes the view that it’s anti-Semitic to criticize Israeli violations of human rights, international law, and discrimination against Palestinians. That actually makes it harder to identify actual forms of anti-Jewish hatred.
The definition threatens to silence our free speech in order to protect Israel. Speaking out against violations of human rights and international law is protected political speech that has nothing to do with discrimination based on religion. The first amendment protects our right to condemn the policies of any government.
This was just one more effort by Rep. Howitt (after his multiple failed prior bills and amendments) to get the Massachusetts legislature to penalize those who oppose Israeli policies. Congratulations to those who mobilized quickly and successfully stopped this anti-democratic amendment!
This experience once again highlights the extreme secrecy and undemocratic procedure that the Massachusetts House of Representatives follows. Critical amendments are decided on three days after being posted. The meeting at which the amendment was discussed was not open to the public or even to legislative staff, but only to legislators, and no record was published of the discussion. The amendment was rejected by the Ways and Means Committee leadership who then posted an amendment package. That amendment package was then passed a few hours later by a vote of 159-0 with 1 not voting. The Act on Mass coalition has been campaigning for the House to do its work with full transparency. It abysmally failed at transparency this week, as it does every week, although the outcome was a good one in this case.
The Massachusetts House of Representatives’ rejection of the “Condemnation of Antisemitism and Adoption of IHRA Definition” amendment put me to mind of two previous times that flinty state repudiated attempts at political tyranny and chicanery.
The Sugar Act of 1764 and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 both sparked powerful public rejections to at first royal, and later, Congressional hubris. One led to the American Revolution and the other to the American Civil War.
Ironically, just as these two historical acts functioned as revolution-legitimating devices, many more citizens of Massachusetts who had never even heard of IHRA will now have been educated and politicized against Zionism owing to its ignorance of or disrespect for American political history.
Every time Zionism attempts to force its agenda on American politics at the level of individual rights, it hemorrhages political capital.This is true relative to: BDS; IHRA; SJP; Palestine posters; AIPAC’s boasting of its ability to get 331 Congressional signatures on a piece of paper; Netanyahu’s disgraceful appearance in Congress as well as the Iran Nuclear treaty, among others.
Zionists seem unable or unwilling to consider that their vaunted ability to get their agenda advanced in almost any US media market in real time works against them when they wander outside the cloistered halls of Congress or any of the state capitols.
What Zionists repeatedly fail to grasp is that they should stop saying the quiet things out loud. Sure, effect the cancellation of a treaty more than 60% of Americans support. Yes, of course, attempt to abolish the historic right of Americans to boycott goods, governments or actions. But do so quietly. Discreetly. By triangulation, and leave no fingerprints.
But no. Israel advocacy has decided that promoting IHRA is important to its agenda but there’s a rub: this and other Israel-centric campaigns impinge upon long-established and hard-fought-for rights and privileges. The American public has not, and will not, take kindly to these assaults and resistance, such as that demonstrated by the Massachusetts House of Representatives’, will likely become more pronounced and more frequent as Zionism continues to blithely insult American norms.
In essence, the government of Benjamin Netanyahu is re-enacting the gratuitously nihilistic policies of George III and John C. Calhoun.
Is it antisemitic according to IHRA to point this out or to fail to point this out?
The IHRA definition of anti-Semitism – which anti-Semitically conflates Israel with all Jews – is just another “human shield” for Zionism and its colonialist, (war) criminal and religion-supremacist activities.