I am mystified that the antisemitism bill in the legislature has become controversial in parts of the Jewish community,

Many opponents base their argument on the assertion that the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)  definition of antisemitism, incorporated in the bill, calls criticism of Israeli policies antisemitic. They quote nothing from the definition in support, so I wonder if they have read it. The definition in fact states “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”

The converse is that criticism of Israel on grounds disproportionate to that leveled against other countries is antisemitic. Critics don’t take issue with that principle, which is unassailable.

Some critics argue that right-wingers like Heritage Foundation support the definition, as though that means non-right-wingers must oppose it. That proposition (“right-wingers believe X; therefore, I must believe not-X” or, more specifically, “Heritage Foundation believes Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state; therefore, I don’t believe Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state”) is self-evidently fallacious.

At the same time, critics ignore the Jewish mainstream groups that universally approve the definition. They include:

The three major Jewish denominations, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Jewish Federations of North America, American Jewish Committee, Anti-Defamation League, AIPAC, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, StandWithUs, Hillel International, American Jewish Congress, B’nai B’rith International, U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, Hadassah, Na’amat, Zioness, ORT, Elie Wiesel Foundation, Simon Wiesenthal Center, CAMERA, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, Combat Antisemitism Movement, ZOA, American Zionist Movement, American Sephardi Federation, Israeli American Council, and, locally, organizations not affiliated with the above, the St. Louis Kaplan Feldman Holocaust Museum and the Missouri Alliance Network.

By opposing the definition, critics place themselves in the Jewish fringe.

Finally, some opponents argue that a better way to fight antisemitism would be to fund security for Jewish institutions. But the bill and such funding are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, in light of recent antisemitic attacks on our community, such funding is a good idea. I am surprised opponents who advocated it in these pages have not pursued it in the legislature.  They should, and they would find common ground with the majority of our community that supports the bill.