October 4, 2023

The recent wave of bomb threats against synagogues seemed to represent another surge in antisemitism in the United States. But now it appears that the perpetrator’s motives had nothing to do with antisemitism.

So should the threats still count as “antisemitic incidents”? The Anti-Defamation League thinks so. The FBI thinks otherwise.

Police in Peru traced the approximately 150 emailed bomb threats to one Eddie Manuel Nunez Santos, 33, of Lima.

According to the FBI, Santos’s modus operandi was to ask teenage girls whom he contacted over the internet to send him explicit photographs of themselves. When they refused, he circulated bomb threats that included their phone numbers. The threats were emailed not just to synagogues, but also various school districts, hospitals, and other institutions.

Something similar happened seven years ago. In late 2016, some 163 bomb threats were made against Jewish institutions around the United States. Initially it seemed the threats were antisemitic; but before long, it was determined that 155 of the threats were made by a mentally unbalanced Israeli teenager, and the other eight were made by an African-American journalist who was harassing his Jewish ex-girlfriend.

The FBI defines a hate crime according to the motive of the perpetrator, so it did not consider any of the 163 threats to be antisemitic. The ADL, by contrast, included all 163 in its 2017 tally of antisemitic incidents, a tally that was much larger than the previous year. The ADL blamed the increase on “the 2016 presidential election and the heightened political atmosphere,” although there is no evidence the Israeli teenager had America’s election in mind.

Aryeh Tuchman, associate director of the ADL’s Center on Extremism, told me at the time that the ADL was categorizing the threats as antisemitic incidents because they had “a major terrorizing effect on Jewish communities.”

According to that criteria, the ADL would have to include as “antisemitism” every instance in which a Jewish person reported feeling “terrorized,” even if the perpetrator was a fellow-Jew, such as a jilted business partner or an angry ex-spouse.

In February 2017, around the same time as those 163 bomb threats, nearly 200 headstones were overturned in a Jewish cemetery in St. Louis. The perpetrator and motive were not immediately established. ADL’s regional director said, “We don’t call something anti-Semitism until we really know it’s anti-Semitism.”

ADL national headquarters, however, continued calling it antisemitism even after the perpetrator’s rather different motive was revealed. In 2019, the cemetery culprit pleaded guilty to charges of institutional vandalism, explaining that he acted in a drunken rage; an FBI spokesperson said the vandal would have charged with a hate crime if there was evidence of antisemitism, but no such evidence was found. Nevertheless, the incident is to this day classified by the national ADL as antisemitic.

So when the Peruvian pornography-solicitor last week was revealed to be the culprit in the recent wave of threats against synagogues, I contacted the ADL to ask if it intends to include those 150 threats in its tally of antisemitic incidents for the year 2023.

I thought perhaps after the experience of 2016-17, the ADL might have reconsidered how it classifies incidents that at first appear to be motivated by antisemitism but then turn out not to be. But the ADL is sticking to its position. “Yes, we will log these as antisemitic incidents,” Aryeh Tuchman wrote me this week.

That will certainly add to the ADL’s final count of antisemitic incidents in 2023. But will it represent an actual increase in antisemitism?

According to the ADL’s statistics, the number of antisemitic incidents has fluctuated wildly during the past decade. It decreased by 19% in 2013, then rose by 21% in 2014. It rose again in 2015, but only by 3%. There were big increases in 2016 (34%) and 2017 (57%—but that includes those bomb threats and cemetery vandalism). Then it dropped again, in 2018, by 5%. It rose by 12% in 2019, then fell by 4% in 2020.

The past two years have seen large increases—34% in 2021 and 36% in 2022. What is unclear is how much of the increase is due to more reporting of incidents, not more antisemitism; and how many of the incidents fit the ADL’s definition of antisemitism but not the FBI’s.

This is the time of year, around the Jewish high holidays, when our email boxes are filled with fundraising appeals from Jewish organizations—at both ends of the political spectrum—that portray contemporary political or social circumstances in the most dire language. Perhaps the Jewish community would be better served by a more sober analysis of how to define antisemitism, even if the result may not benefit some interested parties.

Dr. Medoff is founding director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies and author of more than 20 books about Jewish history and the Holocaust. His latest is America and the Holocaust: A Documentary History, published by the Jewish Publication Society & University of Nebraska Press.

Earlier this month, President Joe Biden met with his Israeli counterpart—notably not at the White House, but at a New York hotel adjacent to the UN, and surrounded by protesters. And on September 22nd, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the UN General Assembly, the largest protest against his administration took place steps away in Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, attended by both Israelis and Americans.

Israel’s relationship with its most important ally is quickly cooling, to the point where even the foreign press has picked up on it, with Le Monde calling Netanyahu’s recent U.S. tour “painful.” But what’s notable about the latest strain on U.S.-Israel relations is the fact that Jewish Americans, historically a support base, are now at the forefront of the criticism.

At the center of these protests is Netanyahu’s decidedly right-wing plan for judicial reforms. Back in July, the Knesset ignored months of mass protests to pass a new law stripping the country’s Supreme Court of its ability to veto governmental decisions. Next steps include giving the executive branch greater control over judicial appointments and removing independent legal advisers from government ministries. It is a plan that inevitably heralds a constitutional crisis, insomuch as a country without a written constitution can have one. When you have retired military major generals and former special forces members weekly joining hundreds of thousands of individuals in the streets of Tel Aviv, you realize this is a moment of true reflection and unrest that is pulling at the core of the country’s ideals.

Regardless of how the matter is resolved, these past months of growing conservatism in Israel have created a chasm between the country and its American supporters. This group was once able to point to shared democratic values as a reason for the two countries’ special relationship—Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid, it was the first country to be designated a major non-NATO ally (MNNA), and has even benefited from U.S. protection on the UN Security Council—but in recent years that reasoning has worn thin.

Regardless of how the matter is resolved, these past months of growing conservatism in Israel have created a chasm between the country and its American supporters.

The country that once made Tel Aviv Pride a global destination has rolled back its recognition of LGBTQ rights. Same-sex marriage is still illegal, though those married abroad enjoy legal recognition thanks to a 2006 Supreme Court ruling. The growing Orthodox right-wing has managed to impose sex segregation in public spaces, with reports emerging of female bus drivers being accosted for doing their jobs and of political parties issuing de facto bans on women running for office. The World Economic Forum’s most recent Global Gender Gap Report saw Israel fall in the ranks from 60th to 83rd place, right below Lesotho.

Perhaps nothing illustrates the clear gap in values between Jewish Americans and the current Israeli government than the visit of Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich to the United States earlier this March. His visit was met with a boycott and a letter of condemnation from a coalition of 145 Jewish American leaders, citing “views that are abhorrent to the vast majority of American Jews, from anti-Arab racism, to virulent homophobia, to a full-throated embrace of Jewish supremacy.”

Israel has to remember that Americans as well are witnessing  the rise of far right extremism here at home. Antisemitism has increased every year since 2015 and spiked alarmingly during the Trump administration, with no signs of abating. Even without Trump, the Republican Party has drifted further right, with two U.S. Representatives recently  taking speaking roles at white nationalist conferences. Rather than taking a stand against the rising tide of U.S. antisemitism, Netanyahu has been all too happy to bolster his strongman image, at the expense of Jewish Americans who have to live with the consequences.

This is not to say that there’s an irrevocable break between Israel and its supporters abroad. There are those who take a non-partisan stance, and Orthodox conservatives in the U.S. generally approve of Netanyahu and his right-wing coalition. But roughly 70 percent of Jewish Americans identify with the Democratic Party, and for them, this moment in Israeli politics is a watershed moment. In addition to worrying about the country’s future, they are also questioning the country’s creation. Dr. Shaul Magid of Dartmouth’s Jewish Studies Department framed it in this way: “The fundamental question all of us have to confront is: Is this government an aberration, or is this government a logical outcome of what’s been going on for the last 50 years?”

For a state so reliant on foreign aid and public opinion, both of which have been bolstered by Jewish Americans in the United States, alienating them to this extreme is yet another blemish on the Netanyahu administration. It remains to be seen if his positioning will impact the once intractable support for the Jewish state in the U.S.

Seth Jacobson is the founder and principal of JCI Worldwide, a Los Angeles-based communications and research firm. He spent several years in the Carter and Clinton administrations in positions focused on economic development, foreign policy, and media relations. He is a frequent lecturer on policy and public affairs at Pepperdine University and UCLA.

The Sukkot festival celebrates the fall harvest and is a time of joy in the Jewish religion. Interestingly, though, when the farmers in ancient Israel brought their offerings of first fruits to the temple, they were required to recite a proclamation that briefly told the story of the Exodus, starting with how the Jews went down to Egypt where they were enslaved by the Egyptians, after which the Lord heard their cries of pain, and with an outstretched arm and signs and wonders brought them out of slavery to a land flowing with milk and honey.  This proclamation appears in the book of Deuteronomy (26:5-9) and is a central text in the Passover Haggadah.  

Rabbi Chaim Steinmetz noted recently that the obligation of Jews to remember their enslavement, and even to speak about it “in a loud voice,” as they are told to do in the Talmud, is something that sets them apart from the ancient Pharaohs and modern-day dictators like Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, who exaggerate their victories and hide their defeats since they don’t want to show any sign of weakness.  By contrast, Jews believe that remembering their enslavement and how they were ultimately redeemed is a source of strength and wisdom.

The great 12th century philosopher Maimonides explained that the shared lesson of the two holidays of Passover and Sukkot is that we ought to remember our worst days in times of prosperity and good fortune, since this will help us appreciate G-d’s gifts and “learn the importance of a modest and humble life.” It will also help keep us grounded in reality and grateful for our good fortune, which we should understand as a blessing in a world where there is so much suffering — past and present.      

Remembering their enslavement in Egypt also helped Jews become resilient and able to survive 2,000 years of exile and persecution. During the two millennia of Jewish exile, many all-powerful rulers and the empires they towered over disappeared and turned to dust, like the statue of Ozymandias decaying in the desert that is the subject of Shelley’s famous poem by that name. Ozymandias is the Greek name of Ramses II, the Pharoah who ruled over Egypt during the Jewish Exodus.  

Rabbi Steinmetz reminds us that Natan Sharansky was a prisoner in one of those empires, the now-defunct Soviet Union, and that he wrote in his memoir, “Fear No Evil,” that he survived in the gulag by telling himself that history did not begin with the birth of the Soviet regime.  “You’re continuing an exodus that began in Egypt,” he continuously repeated to himself. “History is with you.”  

Sharansky has not been silent about current crimes against humanity, especially the genocide that the Chinese totalitarian regime is currently committing against the Muslim Uyghur people. “The free world cannot stay silent about China’s horrific persecution of its Uyghur minority,” Sharansky said in a message to a demonstration organized on September 28 in front of the Chinese Embassy in Washington by congregants of Adas Israel and other synagogues in the city. “The Chinese regime, in fact, has put Uyghur people into the biggest concentration camp that exists today in the world. I know firsthand the power of outside support to those standing bravely against totalitarian regimes.”

As Sharansky said, the free world must not stay silent in the face of China’s terrible repression of the Uyghurs.  We must stand in solidarity with their struggle to survive. 

As Sharansky said, the free world must not stay silent in the face of China’s terrible repression of the Uyghurs. We must stand in solidarity with their struggle to survive.  Even small acts of support are of great importance, like the demonstration at the Chinese embassy that coincided with the start of Sukkot or the “Ushpizin”
 poster produced by the Uyghur Crisis Response Team at Adas that names prominent Uyghur prisoners who become symbolic guests when the poster is hung in the sukkah.  Such acts have a power that should not be underestimated since they will resonate in the hearts and minds of Uyghurs and give them fortitude.

May our Uyghur brothers and sisters find hope in the Jewish story of struggle and faith.  May they become more resilient in their suffering.  And may they draw upon their own history, which began long before Xi was born, to deepen their conviction and unbending faith that they will outlive this modern Pharoah and the cruel system he leads. 

May this be so — and may the Uyghur people live.

Carl Gershman retired in 2021 after 37 years as the Founding President of The National Endowment for Democracy.  He is a member of the board of the Uyghur Human Rights Project and a senior fellow at the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights. This article is based on the address he delivered at the demonstration on September 28 in front of the Chinese Embassy in Washington.

Last Thursday the Biden Administration announced that as part of implementing its National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, eight more federal agencies have now officially adopted the Marcus Policy under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and will be making use of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Definition of antisemitism in order to better protect the Jewish community. Also Thursday, the State Department re-affirmed that in order to fight antisemitism we must define it, and that IHRA is the right definition to help combat antisemitism.

By way of background, in the United States, Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires all recipients of federal funding to ensure (and annually affirm) that their programs and activities are free from harassment, intimidation and discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin. Notably, the Act does not give the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) jurisdiction to investigate religious bias, and so until 2004, OCR typically did not investigate complaints about antisemitism. The problem with that is simple: Judaism is not just a religion, and Jewish identity in particular can be multifaceted, incorporating aspects of religion, race, culture, national origin and ethnicity.

In a groundbreaking September 13, 2004 Dear Colleague letter, then Deputy Assistant Secretary of Education for enforcement Kenneth L. Marcus issued a series of policy statements announcing that OCR would henceforth investigate antisemitism complaints, to the extent that they implicate ethnic or ancestral bias. The logic behind the policy clarification was clear: much of the hatred embodied in antisemitism (and the same is true for Islamophobia) has nothing to do with specific religious practices, and everything to do with ethnicity or ancestral bias. To put it in practical terms, people very rarely hate Jews because they do or do not light Shabbat candles on Friday evenings. They do, however, often hate them for their racial or national origin identity, especially when that involves a real or even just a perceived connection to the State of Israel.

As the Marcus Policy directive explained, “[g]roups that face discrimination on the basis of shared ethnic characteristics may not be denied the protection of our civil rights laws on the ground that they also share a common faith.” The legality of the policy was obviously correct, and built on precedential application of other civil rights statutes. See, for example, Singer v. Denver Sch. Dist. No. 1 (D.Colo.1997), dealing with Section 1982 claims. Since that time, the Marcus Policy reasoning has been amplified by the U.S. Commission On Civil Rights, and confirmed in court both in regard to Title VI cases (See T.E. v. Pine Bush Cent. Sch. Dist., [S.D.N.Y. 2014]) and in the Title VII context as well (see Bonadona v. Louisiana Coll., [W.D. La. 2018]). While the Supreme Court has not yet weighed in on the specific issue, the Court has twice held that other statutes that were similarly intended to protect  identifiable classes of persons who are subject to intentional discrimination “because of their ancestry or ethnic characteristics” included Jewish people—whether or not they would be classified as a race in terms of modern scientific theory (see SAINT FRANCIS COLLEGE, et al., Petitioners, v. Majid Ghaidan AL–KHAZRAJI, etc., 481 U.S. 604 [1987] and Shaare Tefila Congregation v. Cobb, 481 U.S. 615 [1987]). Nor was this ever, in any way, a partisan issue. On October 26, 2010, the Obama Justice Department released an opinion letter confirming the legal correctness of the 2004 Policy.

There was, however, one additional problem for OCR; because Jewish identity and the corresponding manifestations of antisemitism are so multifaceted, without a standard definition to use as a reference, it was still too easy for antisemites to hide behind this vagueness, commit horrible acts that targeted Jews, and then claim their actions were not antisemitic because they were not based on this or that particular characteristic. That led to an equal protection problem that still lingers to this day, and is a contributing factor in the high rates of antisemitic incidents we are currently seeing.

That led to an equal protection problem that still lingers to this day, and is a contributing factor in the high rates of antisemitic incidents we are currently seeing.

In order to correct this problem, on December 11, 2019, the Trump Administration announced an executive order codifying the (now longstanding) Marcus Policy that, for the purposes of Title VI discrimination claims, Jewish students are protected against antisemitism. The Order also clarified that when evaluating these claims, the Department should consider the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA’s) definition of antisemitism. The United States had already been using IHRA for a while; the Definition was incorporated as a guide by the U.S. State Department as early as 2007, unofficially adopted in 2010, and formally adopted in 2016  after it was officially accepted by a plenary meeting of the then-31 countries in the IHRA (including the US). Over the last two decades, the IHRA definition has proven to be an essential definitional tool used to determine contemporary manifestations of antisemitism and is in use by dozens of countries and 1100+ other entities worldwide. While the Definition makes clear that criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic, it also includes useful examples of discriminatory anti-Zionism that can cross the line into antisemitism.

Again, none of this was partisan; there are very few things that the Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden administrations all agree on, but the use of the Marcus Policy, and the IHRA definition, are two of them.

The Executive Order on Antisemitism (reaffirmed by the Biden administration) already applied to any agency within the entire federal government that made use of Title VI. Until now, however, only the Department of Education had been explicit in how they intend to use Title VI to protect Jewish people who are targeted for their shared ancestry, race, national origin and ethnicity. As of September 28, however, the Departments of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, Treasury, and Transportation have all committed to the same. Just a short while later that same morning, Ambassador Deborah Lipstadt, the Special Envoy on Antisemitism, released a report confirming that from the perspective of the United States government, combating antisemitism begins with doing what the U.S. and many others have already done: embracing and applying IHRA.

When the National Strategy document was originally released, there was some legitimate concern that its very acknowledgement of the existence of other (unaccepted) definitions of antisemitism could lead to some confusion about the near-universal acceptance of IHRA. This was despite the fact that the plan was clear that the United States uses only IHRA, and that the other definitions were wrong on key points. The rollout, however, has been remarkably consistent, and it is a relief to see that with antisemitism surging to unprecedented levels across America, the Biden administration is serious about delivering the “most ambitious, comprehensive effort in our history to combat antisemitism in America,” and that instead of seeking to appease those who would undermine this effort by watering down what counts as antisemitism, it continues to unequivocally endorse the IHRA definition in a responsible, whole-of-government way.

Dr. Mark Goldfeder is Director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center.