1. United States
2. Mo.
3. Letter

I urge the rejection of HB2061 (Hruza), SB1051 (Trent), HB2393 (Mackey), and SB1244 (Carter), which dangerously restrict speech. HB2061, SB1051, and HB2393 codify the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, including its controversial examples, into educational conduct codes. These bills dangerously conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, stifling free speech and academic freedom while failing to address real antisemitic threats. The IHRA definition is opposed by a broad coalition: the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Jewish Voice for Peace, and even Kenneth Stern, its lead author, who warns against legal codification. Over 200 scholars endorse the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism as an alternative, rejecting IHRA’s conflation of state criticism with bigotry. Existing laws already prohibit antisemitic harassment. The true goal of these bills is to shield Israel from accountability. Its examples target speech, branding calls for Palestinian rights or critiques of Israeli policy (including findings by Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, and Israeli groups like B’Tselem labeling Israel an apartheid state) as antisemitic. Would quoting these organizations risk discipline? The vagueness of these bills chills debate on ethno-nationalism, self-determination, and human rights. Three of the contemporary examples of antisemitism presented in the IHRA definition are particularly alarming: 1. Claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a “racist endeavor”: Major human rights groups have precisely termed Israel’s systemic discrimination apartheid. Silencing this undermines academic integrity. 2. “Double standards” against Israel not expected of any other democratic nation: This assumes Israel is uniquely “democratic,” ignoring its 57-year occupation. Who decides what constitutes a “double standard”? 3. Comparing Israeli policy to Nazis: An Israeli soldier interviewed in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz has likened Gaza operations to Nazi actions. Would quoting this invite punishment? SB1244 compounds this assault on free expression by mandating that state agencies refer to Palestine exclusively as “Judea and Samaria” and eliminating the term “West Bank”. This erases internationally recognized terminology and compels state employees to adopt language that denies Palestinian identity. It violates scholarly norms and forecloses honest discussion. These bills endanger Palestinian, Jewish, and all students advocating justice. They exacerbate repression amid Israel’s assault on Gaza, resulting in at least 72,000 killed and deemed a “plausible genocide” by the ICJ. Suppressing dissent contradicts Missouri’s commitment to free speech. No foreign nation deserves such protection from criticism. Missouri must reject HB2061, SB1051, HB2393, and SB1244, upholding free speech and rejecting censorship disguised as antisemitism prevention.