Progressives Pretend to Oppose Antisemitism – Now the ARPA

It is so sadly predictable: as the Jewish community faces continued life behind locked doors and surrounded by armed guards and concrete barriers, as Jews feel compelled to hide their identity in public, and as anti-Israel protests harass people entering synagogues and other communal spaces, Jewish progressives want to pretend that they are doing something about antisemitism while asserting an absolutist approach to free speech that is wrong on the law, on the facts, and on policy – and object to any efforts to establish consequences for antisemitic speech and conduct. In doing so, they repeatedly  misrepresent and (at this point it must be said) deliberately lie about the history and meaning of the most-widely recognized definition of antisemitism: the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition of Antisemitism (the “IHRA Working Definition”).

Thus, the latest barrage in support of the recently-introduced Antisemitism Response and Prevention Act (ARPA), including Times of Israel January 2026 articles by Kevin Rachlin (Vice President of Government Relations and Washington Director at the Nexus Project – which, of course, has its own alternative definition, the Nexus Document) and by Jamie Beran (CEO of Bend the Arc: Jewish Action, which opposes the adoption of the IHRA Working Definition).

These articles are typical of the genre – they falsely claim that the IHRA Working Definition restricts criticism of the Israeli government and its actions (even though the definition expressly says precisely the opposite – which they never mention) and, as always, cite as a talisman the opinion of the supposed “lead author” of the IHRA Working Definition, Kenneth Stern. I have previously provided a detailed evaluation of the IHRA Working Definition compared to the Jerusalem Declaration and the Nexus Document, as well as of Mr. Stern’s supposed lead authorship and the numerous flaws in his position. It is further typical of this genre that its proponents never cite or even discuss, much less provide links to, any contrary views or articles; they cite and provide links only to those people and articles with which they agree. Their positions must be taken as articles of faith, reinforced by constant repetition without evidence or debate.

Perhaps before supporting the ARPA, its proponents – and everyone else – should actually read it. The ARPA itself is an extremely partisan document, even as it purports to decry partisanship. The proposed “findings” by Congress are littered with attacks on the “weaponization” of antisemitism by the Trump Administration; “weaponization” is itself a buzz word used by the left to attack any opposing position. The Act’s “findings” repeat progressive talking points – no debate allowed:

(1) the IHRA Working Definition is “non-legally binding educational tool in punitive legal contexts for which it was never intended,” (emphasis added). This false narrative is discussed in detail in my previous article – suffice it to say here that not only do other participants in the drafting of the IHRA Working Definition  strongly disagree with that characterization, but it makes no sense that a committee would work for twelve years on a definition that would be adopted by 31 countries just for an “educational tool” that was intended to be used for no other purpose.

(2) Department of Education investigations “use the false premise of antisemitism accusations as pretext for forcing the elimination of academic programs related to diversity and Middle Eastern studies, threatening to withdraw Federal funding to compel ideological conformity, and undermining the autonomy and academic freedom of such institutions, with common patterns including lack of due process, conflation of criticism of Israeli government policies with antisemitism, and targeting of protected speech and academic inquiry.” (emphasis added). One can take seriously and agree with the assertion that the Trump Administration does indeed have ulterior motives for its actions against universities – but that hardly makes the well-documented pattern of rampant antisemitism in academia and among campus protesters a “false premise.” And to assert that the programs at issue were only criticizing “Israeli government policies” as they celebrated Hamas and October 7, and made campuses unlivable for Jewish students while chanting to globalize the intifada or to make Palestine free from the river to the sea – neither of which has anything remotely to do with the Israeli government policies – is misleading at best and a deliberate falsehood at worst.

(3) Asserts – not entirely wrongly – that the Heritage Foundation’s Project Esther “focuses exclusively on left-wing critics of Israel while ignoring antisemitism from white supremacists and other far-right groups, making no mention of Proud Boys, white supremacist militias, neo-Nazi groups, the Charlottesville violence, the  Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, or other far-right antisemitic violence.” Yet the “findings” suffer from the same one-sided focus, making no mention of left-wing and Islamic antisemitism, including the murder of two young people in Washington, D.C., the fire-bombing and murder of peaceful marchers in Colorado, the murder of Chanukah celebrants at Bondi Beach, the blockade by protesters of synagogues in Los Angeles and New York City (all shouting “Free Palestine” as justification), and much, much more. The habit of criticizing only the other side and never looking internally – while objecting to a “both sides” review – is one of the few unintentional bipartisan agreements of the left and right.

And that is just the proposed Congressional “findings.” The ARPA’s “Statement of Policy and Sense of Congress” continue in this same vein.

(1) It asserts that the fight against antisemitism should not be used for “suppression of constitutionally protected speech” – ignoring the possibility that much of the behavior involved conduct (vandalism, taking over buildings, blocking access to spaces, interrupting classes and speakers, harassing Jewish students – think Cooper Union, among many other such occurrences) that does not even in the broadest sense constitute “speech,” and that much of that does possibly constitute “speech” is not and should not be “constitutionally protected.” The ARPA proposes to do nothing at all about such unprotected conduct and speech – yet it is that conduct and speech that generates the majority of the concerns and the overall hostile environment for Jews.

(2) It declares: “criticism of Israeli government policies, when not motivated by or expressed through antisemitic tropes or discrimination against Jews, is a form of political speech protected by the First Amendment and does not constitute antisemitism.” So, no “context” needed here, right? According to the ARPA, anything goes as to Israeli government policies if not expressed in tropes or discrimination. Double standards applied only to Israel? Re-defining words like “genocide,” “apartheid,” “famine,” and others so that they only apply to Israel and not other countries? These are apparently automatically acceptable and pre-determined to not be antisemitic.

And what about “Free Palestine,” “River to the Sea,” “Globalize the Intifada,” “We don’t want no two state, we want ’48,” “Take another settler out,” ““Khaybar, Khaybar, oh Jews, the army of Mohammed will return,” the entire “settler-colonialist” libel against Israel, and many more similar anti-Israel chants and assertions. These by far make up the vast majority of the anti-Israel environment;  not one of these are aimed at “Israeli government policies.” Most of them call for the eradication of Israel and call for the murder of Jews both inside and outside of Israel; we have seen directly that the receptive audience for these statements has acted with deadly violence around the world. The ARPA is silent on these expressions of hate, and proposes to do nothing whatsoever about them.

(3) It insists that the IHRA Working Definition, the Nexus Document and other definitions are “valuable tools to raise awareness and increase understanding of antisemitism, and should be utilized by Federal, State, and local agencies” which “should not be applied in punitive legal contexts, including immigration enforcement, deportation proceedings, or criminal prosecutions, for which they were never intended.” We’ve already discussed the fundamental assumptive error of “for which they were never intended” – but these definitions, and the entire ARPA, are mandated under the Act to be used only to “raise awareness and increase understanding of antisemitism,” with no action at all allowed once given conduct or speech is determined to be antisemitic under whatever definition is used.

According to the language of the ARPA and its supporters, engaging in antisemitic speech or conduct is, therefore, with impunity, consequence-free. Talk about double standards: racist, anti-LBGTQ, and speech/conduct against any other group is quickly denounced by the “woke” community, with real-world consequences for those who engage in it. Indeed, the entire “cancel culture” concept demands and enforces such consequences. Any white person who utters the “N-word” – even to criticize it – is at risk of losing their job and position. But, per the ARPA, consequences for hate speech, hate crimes, hate-driven violence and vandalism are off limits if the hate is antisemitic.

(4) It mandates “to address antisemitism as connected to other forms of hatred and extremism through coalition-building and comprehensive prevention efforts.” That sounds nice – coalition-building is a positive thing. But what it really does, intentionally, is water-down efforts to counter antisemitism in the backwash of all other forms of discrimination. As pointed out in my previous article, discussing the Congressional testimony of Maya Berry, Executive Director of the Arab American Institute, antisemitic hate occurrences dwarf the number of incidents against all other communities.

It is perfectly appropriate – indeed, extremely necessary – to take special steps unique to the ever-mutating virus that is antisemitism, whether cloaked in anti-Zionism or otherwise – without automatically tying it to “other forms of hatred and extremism.” Doing otherwise inevitably will result in nothing being done, which is evidently the intent of the ARPA’s authors and supporters.

I have urged that hate speech is unprotected speech, regardless of the community against which it is directed. But antisemitism is a unique category of its own. The ARPA’s demand that antisemitism be addressed only as connected to other forms of hate ties the hands of those who seek to defeat it.

After these “findings” and declarations of the “sense of Congress,” what does the ARPA actually do to fight antisemitism? Virtually nothing, it turns out. It creates various agencies to study and report on antisemitism, and to establish a “public awareness campaign.” One might suppose that a public awareness campaign is at least a positive step, but of course the question of what the message of such a campaign might be in an environment such as that set by the “findings” and “sense of Congress” is certainly a concerning one.

The ARPA requires designation of a Title VI Coordinator whose job is to conduct the public awareness campaign, to submit an annual report on that campaign and complaints of antisemitism, and to provide public notice of student rights, while taking “such steps as may be necessary to distinguish between discrimination and harassment prohibited by title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) and political expression protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.” It also requires a monthly Congressional briefing.

The ARPA also establishes a position “within the Department of Justice the Office of the National Coordinator to Counter Antisemitism.” This Coordinator will “serve as the principal advisor to the Attorney General on countering domestic antisemitism,” “coordinate Federal efforts to counter antisemitism,” conduct a “a biennial review of the implementation of Federal efforts to counter antisemitism,” and “review the internal and external antisemitism training and resource programs of the relevant agencies,” all while ensuring “that all antisemitism prevention efforts are coordinated with broader programs to address extremism, hate crimes, and conspiracy theory  proliferation.” The Act establishes a Hate Crime Reporting Center within the FBI whose mission is to “strive to record, track, index, report, and publish data related to every hate crime committed in the United States.”

There are few other flourishes – funding and grant provisions and similar – but that is basically it. The ARPA’s approach to defeating antisemitism is to have more study, reporting, and data collection, along with a public awareness claim, all to be coordinated with all other forms of hate without any special attention to anti-Jewish hate. It establishes zero consequences for those who engage in hate and those who act upon it.

The ARPA’s funding of grants and collection of data, as well as the mandated public awareness campaign that almost certainly will never occur and will be a watery substitute for any real efforts to respond to the anti-Jewish hostile environment so prevalent in this country and around the world. In the end, that was its intent – to look like efforts are underway to combat this scourge while continuing to enable the very conduct that it purports to fight. In many ways, it is worse than doing nothing.

There are pending bills in Congress that can affect real change, the Antisemitism Awareness Act and the Countering Antisemitism Act. Both are vastly superior to the misleading ARPA. We need consequences for those who engage in antisemitism, not just more study and reporting. Kevin Rachlin’s article asks: “Why are we still fighting about antisemitism definitions?” This is why.