Antisemitism bill finally gains state committee approval
Last Thursday, July 24, the New Jersey Assembly State and Local Government Committee voted unanimously to advance a bill that would codify a state definition of antisemitism based on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition.
The bill was introduced a couple of years ago. After delays, the Assembly’s Community Development and Women’s Affairs Committee finally scheduled a hearing on June 23, but the vote was canceled at the last minute, without explanation. Jason Shames, CEO of the Jewish Federation of Northern New Jersey, was so angry at the cancellation that he led Jewish community advocates on a walkout to protest it.
At the July 24 hearing, Mr. Shames testified in support of the bill on behalf of the five New Jersey federations. He began by thanking the committee chairs and members for bringing it to a vote and stressed the need for New Jersey to “take a clear, principled stand” in the face of “the alarming rise of antisemitism” by adopting it. He told committee members that adopting IHRA does not curtail free speech, that “37 U.S. states and over 30 countries have adopted IHRA without infringing on individual rights,” and that he was testifying because “the Jewish community must stand up to those bullies who see this bill as a threat to their ability to harass and intimidate us.
“Passing IHRA will protect the Jewish community and counter the very harassment tactics that opponents of this bill often use,” Mr. Shames added, and asserted that the real reason some oppose the bill is “not because it threatens free speech, but because it threatens their ability to freely target Jews with hate.”
Mr. Shames also stressed that he and the communities he was representing “denounce Islamophobia because all hate is wrong” and “have never opposed language or legislation that addresses anti-Muslim bigotry” because not opposing such language is “morally the right thing to do.”
Englewood’s Mayor Michael Wildes also testified in support of the bill. “As a grandson of Holocaust survivors, I know that language does matter, and we cannot turn a blind eye or deaf ear to even the seeds of hatred and bigotry,” Mr. Wildes told the committee. He referred to a “disturbing resurgence of antisemitism both nationally and within our own communities in Bergen County” and argued that “to combat this rising tide of bigotry effectively, we must first clearly define it.
“The IHRA definition offers a widely recognized and precise framework that supports law enforcement, educators, and civil institutions in identifying and addressing antisemitic actions and speech,” he added.
Like Mr. Shames, Mr. Wildes stressed that adopting the definition “does not impede legitimate discourse” but only “safeguards against expressions that cross the line — such as invoking classic antisemitic stereotypes, applying double standards to Jewish people, or denying their fundamental right to self-determination,” and noted that the distinction is “between fair critique and hateful prejudice.”
There were many more people who supported the bill at last week’s hearing than there had been on June 23, Mr. Shames said. “If last time we were outnumbered three or four to one, this time we outnumbered them, probably two or three to one. We were better prepared this time in terms of getting the word out.
“We need to keep applying pressure,” he added.
A state Senate committee approved a similar bill in June 2024 but in order to be adopted, the full Senate and Assembly still have to vote on it. “This isn’t over yet,” Mr. Shames said. “We certainly won the battle, and we won it in a very convincing and positive manner for us, but the war is still ongoing.
“The opponents of this bill are relentless and determined to undermine Jewish legitimacy in this country,” he concluded. “They can’t accept Jews here or in Israel. It doesn’t matter where Jews are. They have a problem with Jews, and they’re going to do everything in their power to fight this.
“They only oppose the bill because it will limit their capacity to harass Jews on the streets. Instead of it being a misdemeanor crime, it would be a hate crime, and there are significant consequences for that.”
comments