Rep. Barry Moore (R-Ala.) recently reintroduced the Define to Defeat Act, a much-needed federal measure that would help address the gaping loopholes in how our laws currently respond to antisemitic attacks. The bill is grounded in a simple idea: when trying to determine whether an unlawful act was motivated by antisemitism, investigators should consider the world’s most well-accepted definition of antisemitism as contextual, rebuttable evidence.
Valid monitoring, informed analysis and investigation, and effective policy-making all require uniform definitions; and while there can be no exhaustive definition of antisemitism, there must be some objective standard for what is and is not acceptable.
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s conduct-based, consensus-driven approach is the only internationally recognized definition of antisemitism that there is, or indeed ever has been. Over the last twenty years, it has proven to be an essential tool used to determine contemporary manifestations of anti-Jewish rhetoric and actions, including illustrative examples of problematic anti-Zionism that can cross the line into demonizing hatred of Jews.
This new bill does not police speech or criminalize criticism of Israel. It does not punish opinions. What it does is help authorities evaluate whether clearly unlawful behavior — things like arson, battery, threats, stalking, vandalism, and harassment — may have been motivated by antisemitic bias, including when that bias comes cloaked in the language of “anti-Zionism.”
Unfortunately, that distinction is more important now than ever. Since the Oct, 7, 2023 Hamas terrorist attacks in Israel, antisemitic incidents in the U.S. have spiked by nearly 400 percent. And the veneer separating anti-Israel rhetoric from anti-Jewish violence has grown thinner by the day. Over the last few months, we have witnessed a series of horrific attacks across the country where the assailants insisted they were merely anti-Israel—right before they tried to kill Jews.
In April, an arsonist threw a firebomb into the home of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, one of the most visible Jewish elected officials in America. His attacker reportedly justified the act by citing the governor’s support for Israel.
In May, outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C., two young Israeli embassy staffers were killed while attending an event hosted by the American Jewish Committee. The gunman yelled “Free Palestine” and later claimed “I did this for Gaza.”
Earlier this month in Boulder, Colo., an Egyptian national named Mohamed Soliman threw Molotov cocktails at a peaceful gathering of Jewish community members — including children and an 88-year-old Holocaust survivor — and used a homemade flamethrower to ignite chaos. His words? “I’m here to kill all Zionist people.”
Just last week Jewish U.S. Rep. Max Miller (R-Ohio) was nearly run off the road by a driver waving a Palestinian flag and shouting death threats targeted at Miller and his one-year-old daughter.
These weren’t expressions of protected speech. These were violent crimes, targeting Jews who in most cases were not policymakers, soldiers, or diplomats — just ordinary Americans. And yet, each perpetrator has tried to justify the attack as somehow political, as if Jewish lives are fair game when there’s tension in the Middle East.
This is precisely why the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism is so crucial: It helps make clear that holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of Israel is, in fact, a form of antisemitism. Just as it would be racist to attack an Iranian for the crimes of the Ayatollah or to fire a Chinese employee over Xi Jinping’s trade policy, it is antisemitic to target Jews for Israel’s military decisions.
This concept should not be controversial. It certainly isn’t partisan. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have embraced the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition. A supermajority of U.S. states have already adopted it. So have dozens of countries around the world. And for good reason: It’s the only definition that has a demonstrable track record of helping communities identify and push back against antisemitism — especially the kind that hides behind politics.
Zion is not an idea; Zion is a hill, in Jerusalem, Israel, where the Jews are from. Zionism, the belief that Jewish people have a right to their homeland, is the quintessential national origin movement. Telling Jews they can’t be Zionists and simultaneously remain full participants in society isn’t social critique; it’s discrimination. And criminal actions based on that hatred should be punishable as such.
That is all the Define to Defeat Act is about: equipping law enforcement, prosecutors, and civil rights enforcers with the ability to name and respond to antisemitic actions- including violence- especially when that violence comes wrapped in politically convenient excuses. It extends the same common-sense framework that Rep. Mike Lawler’s (R-N.Y.) Antisemitism Awareness Act applies to Title VI education cases into other federal civil rights contexts — like employment and housing — and helps close the gap between intent and enforcement. And while it is absolutely important to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism in the context of Title VI, when it comes to protecting civil rights, Moore’s bill does more.
Opponents of the definition have tried to manufacture a debate over whether the definition is too broad, too nuanced, or too controversial. It isn’t. It explicitly states that criticism of Israel comparable to criticism of any other country is not antisemitic. It even includes safeguards that stress context. The reason the specific examples about Israel are provided is explicitly not because all criticism of Israel is antisemitic, as the definition takes pains to point out twice, but because there are those who falsely claim that no criticism of Israel can ever cross the line, and use their anti-Zionism as an excuse to target Jewish people or institutions.
The act does not protect Israel; it protects Jewish people in America who are unlawfully discriminated against because of their real or perceived connection to Israel.
Right now, the FBI reports that the majority of religiously motivated hate crimes in the U.S. are committed against Jews, who make up only 2 percent of the population. That’s not just alarming. It’s a national crisis. And we cannot defeat a problem we are too afraid to define. The Define to Defeat Act is a good-faith, narrowly tailored, bipartisan tool to help do just that, and all Members of both parties should support it.
Mark Goldfeder is CEO of the National Jewish Advocacy Center and a law professor at Touro University.
