On Wednesday, May 1st, 2024, The House of Representatives passed a Bill called “The Antisemitism Awareness Act,” which some in Beacon have called misleading and a disservice to Jews. Said Tina Bernstein, a resident of Beacon and longtime advocate for justice including during the anti-Vietnam war movement, told A Little Beacon Blog in a Letter To The Editor: “Our House of Representatives and 133 spineless Democrats have fallen in line with right wing conservatives by making it illegal to condemn the fascist government of Israel by conflating that criticism with antisemitism. How shameful! What a disservice to Jews all over who are upholding the principles of ‘Never Again To Anyone.’ And what total disregard for the lives of Palestinians.”

The Bill was pushed through as students across the United States and now the world are holding pro-Palestinian protests demanding that their universities divest financially from Israel, stop exchange programs with Israel, gain amnesty from suspensions for protesting, and other protections. These students are being violently attacked by riot police called in by some universities, as what happened at Columbia, UCLA, SUNY New Paltz, and others. As stated in the proposed bill: “Since 2018, the Department of Education has used the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism when investigating violations of that Title VI.”

According to the Associated Press, the proposal, “would codify the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal anti-discrimination law that bars discrimination based on shared ancestry, ethnic characteristics or national origin.”

The IHRA defines that discrimination as: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. 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.”

The IHRA provides examples to illustrate when this discrimination might occur, according to their disgression. Some of those examples include:

• Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

• Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

• Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

• 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.

• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

The limitation of criticism of this kind could make it discriminatory, for example, to say that Israel was committing genocide of Palestinians.

“If passed by the Senate and signed into law, the bill would broaden the legal definition of antisemitism to include the ‘targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.’ Critics say the move would have a chilling effect on free speech throughout college campuses,” according to the Associated Press.

Says Arvind Dilawar in his piece for Truthout: “As the definition explicitly references criticism of Israel, pro-Palestinian activists fear it may open them up to prosecution, and even hate crimes charges, simply for organizing against the ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza or occupation of Palestine in general.”

Arvind has also been tracking how many states in America, including New York State, are creating state laws to back this broad definition, which does not exist for other nations, including African nations for the brutality American inflicted upon African Americans when stolen from their homes for free labor in America.

Other sectors of American political representatives have had unexpected reactions. Some who normally support bans on Muslims took a turn on this legislation that so protected Israel. NBC News captured these quotes:

"Did the House of Representatives just make parts of the Bible illegal?" Charlie Kirk, conservative commentator, posted to X, formerly Twitter.

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene posted, "Antisemitism is wrong, but I will not be voting for the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023 (H.R. 6090) today that could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing the Gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified by the Jews."

NBC News reported this post: "Congress votes to make the Bible illegal hate speech. I guess I'll see you all in jail!" wrote Lauren Witzke, a former Republican Senate candidate in Delaware.