Stop Weaponizing Antisemitism to Silence Criticism of Israel

I urge the rejection of HB937 (Hruza) and HB746 (Patterson), which 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 56-year occupation. Who decides what constitutes a “double standard”? 3. Comparing Israeli policy to Nazis: An Israeli soldier in Haaretz recently likened Gaza operations to Nazi actions. Would quoting this invite punishment? These bills endanger Palestinian, Jewish, and all students advocating justice. They exacerbate repression amid Israel’s assault on Gaza—at least 61,000 killed, deemed a “plausible genocide” by the ICJ. Suppressing dissent contradicts Missouri’s commitment to free speech. Politically, these bills reek of hypocrisy. Democrats risk abandoning human rights and academic freedom; Republicans contradict their stance against campus “censorship.” No foreign nation deserves such protection from criticism. Missouri must reject HB937 and HB746, upholding free speech and rejecting censorship disguised as antisemitism prevention.