Criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitism

On Dec. 11, President Donald Trump signed an executive order targeting college anti-Semitism. The order set a new legal standard for Judaism, defining it as a race and protecting Jews from discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which “prohibits discrimination on the basis of race … in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.” It also set a new definition for anti-Semitism based on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition, which implies, along with the Trump administration’s rhetoric and policy surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that anti-Zionism, or opposition to the State of Israel and/or its actions, is anti-Semitic.

Essentially, this allows the federal government to hold back funding for colleges that permit anti-Zionism. If colleges permit activist groups to campaign against the actions of Israel, they risk losing federal funding. If colleges teach the history of the Israeli-Arab conflict in certain ways critical to Israel, they risk losing federal funding. This sentiment sets two dangerous precedents: people cannot criticize Israel without being anti-Semitic, and it places barriers on constitutional right to free speech when discussing issues that people have different views on.

At face value, the executive order appears to be a much-needed move. The U.S. has experienced a frightening rise in the frequency of anti-Semitic attacks, from the shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh in late 2018 to the spray painting of swastikas on buildings and schools. Everyone has a right to practice their religion safely, and it is important to protect everyone’s First Amendment right to freedom of religion. Unfortunately, due to the broadness of points in the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, the executive order also allows for censoring of speech critical to the State of Israel.

Criticizing Israeli policy is about not questioning Israel’s legitimacy, right to self-determination or the historical connection between the Jewish faith and the Holy Land; more frequently, it is a nonviolent response to the Israeli government’s decades long “security measures” imposed on the native Palestinian Arabs, which can be characterized similarly to apartheid. These “security measures” include restriction of freedom of movement, restriction of access to potable water, land theft and illegal settlement imposed on the Palestinian people that have lived in the area for centuries before the first contemporary Israelis migrated there from Europe in the early 1900s. There are even two legal systems. The Palestinians who have no right to choose their government, including civilian men, women, and children, are subjugated to Israeli military law and tried in military courts that have a 99.74 percent conviction rate, while Israelis living in the same area are subject to Israeli civil law and tried in civilian courts. The State of Israel has been harshly condemned for these actions, many of which are illegal under international law, by groups such as the United Nations and Amnesty International. The essence of this condemnation is one of freedom, equality and awareness — not hatred of Jews. Trump’s order sends a threatening message to colleges across the nation: if they don’t censor criticism of the State of Israel, they risk losing federal funding necessary to their continued operation. Moreover, it sets a dangerous precedent that supporting Palestinian human rights is, by nature, anti-Semitic.

By limiting criticism of one of its allies, the Trump administration sets a dangerous precedent regarding free speech. In the future, could criticism of other countries we are allied with be deemed illegal? Moreover, the executive order limits the right to freedom of speech of college professors, who may try to explain the Israeli-Arab conflict from both perspectives. Now, in order to comply with Trump’s order, they may be hesitant to explain key parts of the Arab point of view, out of fear of loss of funding.

Unfortunately, critics of Israeli policies, whether Palestinian, Jewish or others, are often branded as “anti-Semites.” Pro-Israel groups such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee heavily lobby the U.S. government. In addition, Evangelicals who constitute a large segment of the Republican Party also strongly support pro-Israel legislation and ignore the Israeli government’s human rights violations. Trump’s executive order threatens the right to freely dispute the complicated politics of the conflict, and in the end, although all religions deserve equal protection, the broad terminology used in the order simply suppresses speech critical of Israeli policies and discourages the progressive dialogue that’s needed to bring peace to the people in the region.