Bay Area-based JIMENA: Jews Indigenous to the Middle East and North Africa is leading a campaign alongside 25 other national and California-based Jewish groups to urge Gov. Gavin Newsom to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism for the state.
The groups wrote a letter dated Oct. 17 to Newsom, urging action on the matter 10 days after the Hamas terrorist attack in Israel. On Dec. 20, the organizers publicized the letter in a press release, after the governor’s office did not respond, according to JIMENA, and more organizations signed on in support.
This collective appeal comes in response to escalating incidents of antisemitism both within the state and globally, according to the press release.
“The distress and trauma of witnessing such overt violence against Jewish individuals in Israel is compounded by our fellow Californians demonstrating in militant support for Hamas’s heinous actions,” the groups said in the letter. “It is disheartening that there are organizational leaders and activists in California vocally celebrating the slaughter of innocent Israeli civilians.”
The release acknowledged Newsom’s ongoing efforts statewide to combat antisemitism and promote tolerance, which included an “emergency” meeting with Jewish communal leaders on Nov. 7. It also emphasized the need to define antisemitism in order to comprehend and combat it.
“We strongly believe that, for the state to effectively address antisemitism, the adoption of a clear definition is imperative,” the groups said.
The governor’s office didn’t immediately respond to J.’s request for comment.
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) adopted its definition of antisemitism in 2016. The definition: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
In addition to the definition itself, IHRA offers 11 examples of antisemitism, including “calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.”
The Oct. 17 letter highlights 2022 hate crime statistics from the California Attorney General’s Office, which show that anti-Jewish hate constitutes 62% of all religious-based hate crimes in the state, targeting California’s 2% Jewish population. The letter also draws attention to the findings of the Anti-Defamation League’s 2022 State of Antisemitism in America report, revealing a lack of awareness about antisemitism among a quarter of Americans and a perception that antisemitism is not treated as seriously as other forms of hate.
RELATED: Thirty-nine words about antisemitism are splitting the Jewish community
“As antisemitism in California continues to rise, concrete steps must be taken to help our state agencies and public officials understand and identify antisemitism when it occurs,” Sarah Levin, executive director of JIMENA, told J. in an email.
The groups’ letter emphasizes the IHRA working definition’s explicit acknowledgment that criticism of Israel is not inherently antisemitic, addressing claims made by international organizations that the definition is too broad and that the 11 examples of antisemitism attached to the IHRA definition focus too much on Israel.
Twenty eight states have adopted the IHRA definition, according to the Jewish Virtual Library.
Earlier this year, Georgia legislators proposed a bill that would formally codify the IHRA definition of antisemitism in state law. The proposed bill was met with opposition from the Progressive Israel Network and other groups that feared the law would infringe on First Amendment rights.
“It is worth noting that several governments, who have adopted the IHRA working definition and view it as a valuable tool, have been able to express strong criticism of Israeli policies and practices without infringing upon it,” the letter reads. “Additionally, it is important to acknowledge that the IHRA Working Definition is non-legally binding and does not impose any restrictions on speech, even when it pertains to the most hateful expressions.”
In addition to JIMENA, the 25 organizations that have signed on to the letter’s request include the ADL, American Jewish Committee, California Israel Chamber of Commerce, Hillel at Davis and Sacramento, Hillel San Diego, Hillel at UCLA, Holocaust Museum LA, Jewish Federation of San Diego, Progressive Zionists of California and the L.A.-based Simon Wiesenthal Center.
Marco Sermoneta, the San Francisco-based consul general of the State of Israel to the Pacific Northwest, wrote an opinion piece in J. in early 2023 asking the state to adopt IHRA’s definition.
Statements from Levin and Rabbi Meyer H. May, executive director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and Museum of Tolerance, were included in the Dec. 20 release.
“Governor Newsom has demonstrated a steadfast commitment to combating antisemitism amid its rapid increase,” Levin said. “We are grateful for his leadership. Now, the state must formally define antisemitism so it can be more clearly identified and addressed. Adopting the IHRA definition as the sole definition will help in this critical fight.
Added May: “There should no longer be confusion surrounding what is or is not antisemitism as it has been shamelessly revealed for all to see. But for those who wish to obscure the truth, redefine or escape it, the IHRA definition of antisemitism provides the clear definition that belies all cynical attempts to deny it!”