Will Antisemitism Bill Survive?

We know that our nation’s politics have become exceedingly and intolerably polarized in recent years. We have become resigned to the new reality that support for Israel in the U.S. has become an increasingly partisan issue. But perhaps there is space in even such a balkanized landscape for the two warring parties in Washington to briefly put aside their weapons and stand together against the dire threat of antisemitism. 

It was just last year when the House of Representatives passed the Antisemitism Awareness Act by an overwhelming 320-91 margin, only to watch it stall in the Senate. Leaders of both parties had indicated their backing for the legislation, which would codify the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism into U.S. law as the sole definition to be used by the Department of Education when investigating allegations of antisemitic discrimination. But when the bill came up before the relevant Senate committee last week for its initial vote, members of both parties added amendments to reflect their own ideological goals and to put their opponents in an uncomfortable position by tying more controversial matters to the core legislation itself.

Religious conservatives had fired a warning shot last year, when 21 Republican House members voted against the act because of concerns that its passage would assert that it is antisemitic to accuse Jews of killing Jesus.

But of course, it is antisemitic to accuse Jews of killing Jesus. The myth, also known as “deicide,” has resulted in unimaginable Jewish suffering and has been used to justify antisemitic beliefs, despite the uniform agreement of historians and theologians that Jews are not culpable for the death of Jesus. 

The origin of the misconception is based on a New Testament verse: “His blood be on us, and on our children,” (Matthew 27:24-25), which has been read as an admission that all Jews, of Jesus’ time and after, accepted responsibility for Jesus’ death. But most scholars agree that the language reflects sorrow rather than responsibility, an interpretation that has been dismissed by those eager to seek retribution on Jews over the last two millennia.

It’s been argued that the passage has caused more Jewish suffering throughout history than any other in the New Testament. For centuries, the myth was promulgated by Christian leaders during sermons that often inspired church members to avenge the death of Jesus and even condemned Jews as agents of the devil. The Vatican officially repudiated the deicide myth more than 60 years ago, stating unambiguously that the crucifixion of Jesus “cannot be charged against all Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today.”

But knowing that many Democrats, including progressive Jews, would vehemently oppose the loophole, Republicans inserted an amendment during last week’s hearing that would exempt such accusations from the antisemitism definition, despite the fact that this precise example is included in the IHRA wording.

Not to be outdone, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) led the charge from the left as Democrats introduced several amendments of their own, several of which would undermine the IHRA text by including contradictory language and the others making it more difficult to prosecute anti-Israel protesters engaged in objectionable conduct. Just as Republicans on the committee prioritized the needs of their most intolerant colleagues, Democrats demonstrated that they are just as committed to their most anti-Zionist members.  

Just as Republicans on the committee prioritized the needs of their most intolerant colleagues, Democrats demonstrated that they are just as committed to their most anti-Zionist members. 

The bill barely survived and will be heard again, although a date has not yet been set for a vote. If it passes in committee, it will then move to the full Senate floor, where the new version’s prospects are much less certain. 

At a time in which college campuses across the country have been the battleground in a resurgent wave of antisemitism and in which the Anti-Defamation League has catalogued record levels of harassment, abhorrent speech and violence against Jews, it would be reasonable to assume that our elected representatives would be willing to take a clear stand against such abject bigotry. But even reasonable assumptions are unreliable in today’s political environment. Party loyalties apparently come first, even before the fight against prejudice, intolerance and hate.

Dan Schnur is the U.S. Politics Editor for the Jewish Journal. He teaches courses in politics, communications, and leadership at UC Berkeley, USC and Pepperdine. He hosts the monthly webinar “The Dan Schnur Political Report” for the Los Angeles World Affairs Council & Town Hall. Follow Dan’s work at www.danschnurpolitics.com.