Here we go again: Why are we still fighting about antisemitism definitions?

Look, I get it. We all want to fight antisemitism. Jewish communities face real threats: synagogue shootings, cemetery desecrations, harassment in schools and on the streets. The FBI documented nearly 2,000 antisemitic incidents in 2024 alone. This is serious. So why, after all these years, are we still stuck arguing about definitions?

On his first day in office, New York City’s new Mayor Zohran Mamdani revoked every executive order issued after former Mayor Adams was indicted on federal bribery charges, including one adopting the IHRA definition of antisemitism. Predictably, all hell broke loose. Jewish organizations issued emergency statements. Israel’s Foreign Ministry decried the move as “antisemitic gasoline on an open fire.” Civil liberties groups applauded.

And here I am, once again, explaining why codifying a contested definition into law was always a bad idea — not because antisemitism isn’t real, but because there isn’t a consensus on a single definition, and the definition some groups keep trying to enshrine has serious problems.

In practical terms, the order meant city agencies would use IHRA as a framework to assess discrimination complaints, potentially affecting everything from workplace policies to contract decisions.

Here’s the thing about IHRA: it describes itself as “non-legally binding.” The organization that created it did not intend for it to be enshrined in law. The core definition is fairly anodyne — antisemitism is “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews” – but the controversy lies in its 11 “contemporary examples,” seven of which involve Israel. These include describing Israel’s founding as a “racist endeavor,” “applying double standards” to Israel, and “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”

Reasonable people disagree about whether these statements are antisemitic, offensive-but-protected-speech, or legitimate political commentary. Kenneth Stern, the lead drafter of the original IHRA definition, has testified to Congress that he never intended it to be codified into law and warned that doing so would suppress political speech rather than combat actual hatred. First Amendment defenders on both the right and the left agreed.

If you want proof that stemming criticism of Israel is the motive of IHRA’s key backers, look no further than how a Senate committee scuttled a federal bill codifying it because it also noted that criticism of the Israeli government is not itself antisemitic.

The Antisemitism Awareness Act had sailed through the House with bipartisan support. An amendment seeking to protect legitimate criticism of Israeli policy passed a Senate committee by a vote of 12-11, with all Democrats and libertarian Republican Rand Paul voting yes.

The bill’s supporters were furious. Senator Bill Cassidy called the amendment “a poison pill.” That tells you everything. Even a modest marker against using an antisemitism definition to police legitimate criticism of Israel was enough for proponents to abandon what they’d called the most critical tool against antisemitism.

Senator Paul put it bluntly during the hearing: “Every example of antisemitism in that list is about words, not action. You can’t regulate speech.” The committee adjourned without voting on the bill, and it has gone nowhere since.

Mayor Mamdani’s sweeping action against the directives of an indicted former mayor has a sound rationale, whether one supports it or not. And, credit where it’s due: Mamdani renewed the Mayor’s Office to Combat Antisemitism, continuing its strength and mandate established by Adams. Still, it drew immediate condemnation from seven major New York Jewish organizations. At a moment of genuine anxiety, their concerns are understandable. But their framing of this move as an affront to Jewish safety only heightens that anxiety.

Every decent American is struggling with why unprecedented policy tools, resources and public resolve to reverse the unrelenting rise of antisemitic hate don’t seem to be enough. That’s a good reason for all of us to stop squandering precious energy and resources dividing and polarizing communities over a definition that was never meant to be law, while actual antisemites are more emboldened than ever.

There are better ways to fight antisemitism. Fund security for vulnerable institutions. Empower and train law enforcement and other officials to prevent and respond to hate crimes against Jews and all targets of hate. Support education on antisemitism and bias. Enforce civil rights laws against actual discrimination and harassment.

Organizations should look to concrete measures like the Antisemitism Response and Prevention Act, which expands and funds material action and infrastructure for sustained efforts to prevent, investigate, and punish antisemitic acts — without the constitutional landmines.

Antisemitism is a serious danger to Jews and to the social fabric, and we’re not going to defeat it with definitions or by arguing over them.