The Antisemitism Awareness Act and how conspiracy theorists will exploit it.

One of the greatest honors a conspiracy theory entrepreneur can receive is the badge of being censored by those in power. For individuals like Alex Jones or Nick Fuentes, such actions against them are evidence that their words have truth and that “The Globalists” must suppress the truth or else their master plan will be exposed for the whole world to see. This framework is popular in the conspiratorial community. It is a sort of Dave vs. Goliath that most people enjoy because who doesn’t like seeing the little guy win?

So, what does this have to do with the Antisemitism Awareness Act? A lot, actually. During the 2023-2024 academic school year. Universities across the country began protesting Israel’s military operation in Gaza after the October 7th attacks. Some demonstrations were clearly antisemitic, with signs blaming all the Jews for what has been happening in Gaza or calling for the expulsion of Jews from the Middle East. But other gatherings were not antisemitic. For many demonstrators, the images of Palestinian children being found dead under the rubble after an Israeli airstrike animated sympathy for the Palestinian people, and who wouldn’t sympathize with them. Anyone who is a parent should understand the pain parents in Gaza are going through.

However, because the loudest people in a crowd are often mistaken for the majority, it has become a habit to villainize all who protest against Israel as terrorist supporters. Over the last couple of months, there has been coverage of pro-Palestine protests that have been plagued with antisemitic chants. But ask yourself the question. Is this coverage an accurate representation of all Palestine rallies in the U.S. It is important to remember that while it is designed to inform, the media also prioritizes ratings. As the old saying goes, “If it bleeds, it leads”. For example, in 2020, during the Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests, mainstream media’s coverage of the demonstrations would have anyone believe that every racial injustice protest would result in the destruction of towns and cities. While riots did occur that year, it should be noted that 93% of BLM protests in 2020 did not result in riots. So, it begs the question if pro-Palestine protests are going through a similar phenomenon. Perhaps.

Still, this has not stopped people from labeling every pro-Palestine demonstration as an antisemitic festival by using the working definition of antisemitism used by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). The problem with the IHRA definition is that it is unable to differentiate between who is antisemitic and who is ignorant. While all antisemitism is based on ignorance, not all ignorance is based on antisemitism. For instance, pro-Israel supporter and actress Noa Tisby went to interview demonstrators at a pro-Palestine rally who were chanting, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” When Tisby asked which river and sea they were referring to, the people she caught on camera were unable to answer. If they cannot identify the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, is it possible that they don’t even know what an Intifada is and are just saying it because everyone else is? I think so.

But why does it matter if a person is antisemitic or ignorant against Jews if, in the end, the result is the same, right? Wrong. The difference between both is that an antisemite has a negative perception of Jews that has been crystalized by an ideology. In contrast, ignorance is defined as lacking knowledge on a specific topic. It is because of this that people who are in the ignorant camp still have the opportunity to be informed about the Israel/Palestine history before being radicalized into an extremist movement. Yet, people who are advocating in favor of the Antisemitism Awareness Act are the same ones who are pushing these people further away, not bringing them closer.

The fact is that the Antisemitism Awareness Act will ensure that any student or educator on a U.S. college campus who criticizes Israel to be labeled antisemitic. It would risk the student/educator from being removed from the university and the institution losing its funding. For example, the IHRA definition includes comparing current Israeli policies with those of Nazi Germany as antisemitic. However, imagine if a college student wanted to discuss the current reports of how Israel’s detention center in the Negev desert had some similarities with the concentration camps in Nazi Germany. That student would be shunned. What message would that send to students? Are we expected to believe that they will just drop their curiosity and move on? Absolutely not. They will go on the internet and educate themselves in an ecosystem that is concentrated with anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

I mean, imagine if there was a congressionally endorse definition of anti-American that included comparing U.S. practices with Nazi Germany. Every academic institution would have to avoid talking about the 1932 Tuskegee Experiment, which unethically used 600 African American men as lab rats to see the effects of untreated syphilis or better yet, imagine a working definition of Islamophobia which includes but not limited to denying that Palestine exists, stating that every participant of a pro-Palestine protest is a terrorist supporter or that everyone in Gaza is responsible for what Hamas did on October 7th, as was suggested by Israeli President Isaac Herzog. We would have lawsuits being filed right and left. Academic institutions, as we know them, would cease to exist, and discussions about complex topics would be forbidden from lectures. What kind of college experience would that be. Instead of creating safe spaces, we must be okay with being uncomfortable with ideas opposing our worldview. As Kenneth S. Stern, lead drafter of the IHRA definition, said when I spoke with him, “We need to educate about these topics, not discipline our way out.”

The Antisemitism Awareness Act was created with good intentions, but it will generate more antisemites in the long run. We only have to look at how the word racism was attempted to be expanded to illustrate my point. In 2018, Robin DiAngelo, an antiracist scholar and author of White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism, expanded the definition of being a racist. Not only was racism defined as the hatred of other races and the belief in racial superiority, but the mere fact that someone was born white automatically classified them as a racist. Obviously, people push back on this notion, and rightfully so. The word was being diluted. However, what isn’t talked about as much is how white supremacists used Robin DiAngelo’s efforts of expanding the definition of racism to slowly radicalized people into their ideology by creating a narrative of how the mainstream wanted to shame people for being white, and unfortunately, it worked. 

I fear a similar fate will occur with how the working definition of antisemitism will be weaponized. Since the protest started, many Holocaust deniers have infiltrated pro-Palestine demonstrations to recruit and build their following on social media. Because support for Israel has dropped from 50% in November of 2023 to 36% in March of 2024, pro-Palestine supporters who are not aware of the whole historical context between Israel and Palestine are easy targets for antisemitic radicalization.

Even if the Antisemitism Awareness Act is passed, it will only be a band-aid type of solution. Criticism of Israel and antisemitic sentiment exist not only in academia but also on social media, online-multiplayer gaming chat rooms, and the dinner table where that one family member is still trying to convince you that Israel was behind 9/11. Simply put, any top-down policy will only reinforce the antisemitic trope that the Zionist Occupied Government is trying to suppress our speech and if I were a conspiracy theory influencer, you can bet that I’ would be hoping that the bill becomes law.

To address antisemitism, we have to understand the psychosocial factors that contribute to these beliefs. In other words, we must have intellectual dialogue about how it manifests within different communities and how these perceptions are maintained.