DEFINING ANTISEMITISM IN THE TIME OF TRUMP

     For suspect reasons—the 2022 election fell ten weeks later—, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham signed “Executive Order 2022-118: Adopting Working Definition of Antisemitism.”  Since there are probably too few Jews concentrated in any voting district, much less in the state, to swing any election one way or the other, scoring political points with New Mexico’s Jews seems an unlikely motive.

My blog at the time (16 Oct 2022) addressed the circumstances and possible motives of this E.O., not its technical merits.  I reserved that analysis until a second blog (29 Nov 2023), which was well received in certain quarters.  My criticisms then are among those now, as the definition of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), which the E.O. incorporates by reference, suffers diminishing regard since it was adopted in 2016, when something, almost anything, was needed as antisemitism greatly increased in the second decade of the 21^st century.

 

My first criticism of the IHRA “working definition” concerned its vague language.  I wrote, “imprecise language suggests that criticism of Israel is antisemitic.  However, much depends on the specific nature of that criticism.  Without its specification, some critics of Israel might be improperly and painfully suspected or accused of antisemitism though they are not.  That possibility is intimidating and thus infringes on free speech.”  This criticism points to another and larger failing of the IHRA definition: it is not a definition at all.  Instead, it is a list of “manifestations,” words or deeds labeled as antisemitic.  The problems with such a list are that it includes items which are not antisemitic, excludes items which are antisemitic, and provides no guidance for anything which is not obviously one or the other.

 

Whatever else may be said about my recommended definition—a cluster of beliefs, feelings, and actions which are adverse to Jews as individuals, groups, or the State of Israel because they are Jews or Jewish; which assume or imply the moral or religious imperfection, inferiority, or unworthiness of Jews or Jewish beliefs or practices; which denigrate, distort, or deny the Jewish historical experience; which apply double or differentiating standards in judging or treating Jews or Israel; or which exploit Jews for ulterior motives—, it does not present these problems.

 

However important it is to have a good definition of antisemitism as a guide to ascertaining what is or is not antisemitic, having such a definition is only a necessary starting point.  What matters is how we deal with antisemitic words, deeds, or persons.  After an antisemitic event, public condemnation is always appropriate.  Criminalizing the antisemitic hate which motivates the criminal words and deeds directed at Jews or their institutions—i.e., as “hate crimes”—is, to my way of thinking, never appropriate.  First, in themselves, motives are not crimes.  Second, making the “hate” of antisemitism a crime implicitly treats Jews differently under the law from others who have crimes committed against them because of other kinds of hate; though thought to be “favorable” to Jews, this differential treatment under the law is antisemitic.

 

Under Trump, there has been a resurgence of antisemitic incidents like the attacks on Jews at the Pittsburg Tree of Life synagogue (2018) or the Chabad of Poway synagogue (2019) during his first term.  Public reaction to these and other antisemitic events was their condemnation as “unacceptable.”  Almost everyone, antisemite or not, knows that antisemitism, however expressed, is not publicly acceptable, and tries to avoid the accusation.  Antisemites deny it.  So it takes some work—collecting data and interpreting them as evidence—to make the accusation responsibly.  And this work returns us to a good definition of antisemitism.

 

Meanwhile, accusations of antisemitism from Trump or his staff cannot be regarded as reflecting sincere opposition to it.  I doubt that Trump, his JINO (Jew in name only) policy adviser Stephen Miller, or other staff have any understanding of antisemitism, much less its nuances, or care one way or the other about it.  Case in point: Trump did not object to antisemitic words, symbols, and flags used by the Charlottesville, VA, marchers (2017).

 

Recently, Trump, staff, and others have criticized campus demonstrations opposing Israel’s conduct of the war or sympathizing with or supporting Gazan civilians as antisemitic.  They accept that these positions are antisemitic though, at most, the IHRA “working definition” only verges on suggesting they might be—which is why many reject it.)  First, Congressional Republicans conducted hearings on how Columbia, Pennsylvania, and MIT handled antisemitism on campus generally, in demonstrations particularly.  Then, Trump used antisemitism as a smear of protesters, many, if not most, of whom are not antisemitic, and as a pretext to curtail funding or investigate universities in order to stifle free speech and academic freedom.  In doing so, he singled out Jews by making them the reason for the punishment of protesters and campuses alike.  In the name of fighting antisemitism, he advanced it by abetting resentment at Jews.  In short, Trump weaponized antisemitism, not to oppose antisemitism, but to exploit it for his ulterior political and personal purposes—antisemitism to be expected of Trump.

 

Just as Trump has made and repeated accusations that the 2020 election was stolen because of voter fraud without actually providing any evidence, so he accuses campus demonstrators of being antisemites, disregarding the fact that many of them, professors and students, are Jews.  His and his staff’s accusation that demonstrators opposing Israeli military operations in Gaza or showing sympathy or support for Palestinian civilians support Hamas—admittedly, a few did—shows their disregard of the truth.  When politics is involved, a good definition of antisemitism is no assurance that, in the name of fighting antisemitism, it will not be abused.  But it might help if politicians take care in using it to oppose antisemitism.

 

Regrettably, nothing in the IHRA “working definition” or Governor Grisham’s Executive Order addresses a situation or an antisemite like this one.  Unlike my definition, neither document addresses the existence of institutional or structural antisemitism, or offers guidance for dealing with it.  If Governor Grisham or Attorney General Raúl Torrez mean to respond to, if not also hinder, antisemitism, they should revise Executive Order 2022-118 as a first step not only to handling everyday incidents and agents of antisemitism, but also to preparing for unnoticed or unusual situations and atypical antisemites.

      The practical importance of a sensible understanding and definition of antisemitism became clear in a court ruling Friday.  Louisiana immigration judge Jamee Comans ruled that the government can deport Mahmoud Khalil.  I quote from the NPR account:

 

Khalil, who as a Columbia University graduate student led pro-Palestinian protests there last year, was detained last month after Secretary of State Marco Rubio determined that Khalil had engaged in "antisemitic protests and disruptive activities, which foster a hostile environment for Jewish students in the U.S."

 

In an undated 2-page memo submitted to the court, Rubio detailed that on March 7 he got information about Khalil from the Department of Homeland Security and as a result he determined that allowing Khalil to remain in the country would undermine a U.S. foreign policy goal of combating antisemitism around the world.

 

The focus of the demonstrations at Columbia was on Israeli warmaking and Palestinian suffering, with advocacy of a Palestinian state.  Some of the protesters’ placards and slogans can be interpreted as anti-Israeli and antisemitic.  But anti-Israeli speech is not antisemitic speech, and antisemitic speech is free speech protected by the First Amendment, for citizens and non-citizens alike.  No doubt, protests which are or are perceived to be antisemitic might well alarm and frighten Jews, students and professors alike, at Columbia.  But their reactions constitute a “heckler’s veto,” which is legally ruled out as a reason for suppressing otherwise free speech.

 

Khalil’s participation in the protests—as Rubio represents them, “disruptive activities”—which he led did not result in detention or charges of disorderly conduct or property destruction.  In this context, Rubio’s claim that Khalil’s continued presence in the United States would undermine any aspect of U.S. foreign policy is an absurdity and an exaggeration, which, to be believed, assumes that the policy is a very weak one.  His claim that “a U.S. foreign policy goal [is] combating antisemitism around the world” is simply a lie.  It has nowhere been stated, and it has nowhere been pursued.  If the U.S. enforced such a policy it would have dealt with Elon Musk for his repeated antisemitic tweets on X and his support of Germany’s AfD, a party which denies its known antisemitic pre-dispositions.

 

In short, the Trump administration has no concept of antisemitism; it has only a term of bigotry to use as a political weapon, to wield against its enemies and to set aside for friends.

A RECKONING FOR REPUBLICANS

      Donald Trump was inaugurated as the 47^th president of the United States on 20 January 2025.  I congratulate myself that, after about a week, I drafted a blog “After Insurrection, Mercy Is Folly and Forgiveness a Mistake” (31 Jan 2025), which anticipated the current state of affairs and raised an issue which Democrats have not yet addressed.  The gist of the blog is that America faces an administrative/quasi-legal insurrection against its government; that, when the electorate rejects the Trump regime, Republican officeholders will try to obscure their cowardly and collusive support; and Democrats must prepare to hold them accountable for their conduct. 

The Republican commitment to serve Trump and his administration was clearly shown by events in the week ending March and beginning April.  Republicans lost the Wisconsin race for a Supreme Court seat and won two seats in Florida congressional districts by halved margins.  Undaunted, Senate Republicans confirmed, 52-45 (Lisa Murkowski the only Republican opposing) Harmeet Dhillon, an experienced lawyer with a record of attacking voting rights to lead the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division.  The implication is that, committed to Trump and his positions, Republicans cannot be persuaded by the political facts on the ground to cast votes reflecting a commitment to democratic ideals, principles or traditions.  The historical precedent is the persistence and spread of the racist belief in the “Lost Cause” of white supremacy and the associated hatred of the federal government—the living legacy of today’s Republican Party.

 

The associated socio-economic stance is Republican neo-plantationism—to coin a term—, or amassing wealth by exploiting the masses (formerly, slaves; now, non-professional workers) and opposing the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the rest.  The Republican wish to “own the libs” is a perfect phrase to reflect the desire to dominate and possess liberals (and all others) as if they be chattel property.

 

Accordingly, Republicans oppose taxes, which they view as takings, that is, seizures of private property for public purposes.  These purposes include “safety net” programs (e.g., Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP) or other societally beneficial activities under the rubric of discretionary spending.  Trump, with the aid of Elon Musk and the support of Congressional Republicans, is wrecking departments and agencies of the federal government, reducing their budgets, limiting their services, and restricting or terminating their distribution of revenues.  They are doing what Republicans have long wanted to do: shrink government and reduce the need for taxes.  They have no intention of replacing what they are destroying, with a redesigned and reconstructed federal government consisting of much more than a treasury and a Pentagon.  The precedent, though never effected, is the Republican approach to the Affordable Care Act (aka, “Obamacare”); Republicans wanted to eliminate it and claimed to want to replace it with something which—they lied—would be better and less costly.  In a decade, they never designed it because they never meant to replace it.

 

In this context, Trump’s tariff policy is a con job purporting to make up the difference between a government claimed to be bloated and one shrunken to be efficient.  One pretense is that tariff revenues can replace taxes.  If tariffs generate revenues, they will do so as a regressive tax on consumers.  Even so, they will be insufficient to pay for what the public wants.  Moreover, the Trump-shrunken government will lack the departments and agencies to provide services or to distribute funds, and, at best, will support little more than a caretaker government and the Pentagon.  (Tariffs will also enable Trump to manipulate state and foreign governments, and domestic and foreign companies to his financial and political benefit.  They give him enormous power unconstrained by the law or the Constitution.)

 

Meanwhile, Congressional Republicans acquiesce in the numerous threats to America, many increased over current deficiencies: poverty, hunger, homelessness, diminished health care, increased vulnerability to disease, unsafe food, and polluted air and water.  The biggest threat to the country is the long-term damage caused by defunding or redefining educational and other research (e.g., NIH) institutions.  Since the end of the Second World War, America’s system of higher education has been the dynamo of its economy, national defense, medicine, and culture.  As such, it has attracted some of the best and the brightest from other countries, many of whom remain, become permanent residents or citizens, and continue to contribute to a robust America.  A good thing, too, because America’s public schools do not provide enough of those needed in relevant fields.  If these institutions lose their academic freedom, institutional stability, and adequate and reliable funding for research, they will become less attractive to foreigners and less innovative.  The economy, national defense, medicine, and culture will suffer, not a temporary set-back under the Trump administration, but a prolonged decline even under succeeding administrations trying to reverse his administration’s policies.

 

In short, Republicans are ending the American century.  They are weakening the country in many and long-term ways.  They are doing so deliberately.  They cannot plead ignorance, only cowardice and self-interest, all of them more interested in remaining in office than in serving their constituents or country.  For example, Iowa Senator Joni Ernst, a former military office and sexual abuse victim, when threatened with a primary challenger for expressing doubts about Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, voted to confirm Pete Hegseth because she regarded her survival in office as more important than national defense.  Other Republican senators, fearful of Trump’s power to threaten their political tenure, voted for unqualified, dishonorable, and deceitful nominees; have tolerated his many illegal and impeachable acts in office; and otherwise aided and abetted his unethical or destructive policies.

 

Trump will leave office (my hope is that a cheeseburger helps him along).  Then what?  I believe that today’s Congressional Republicans will hope to restore their reputations in an effort to cling to office by opportunistically bad-mouthing him or pleading for a second chance.  For forswearing their oath of office and trifling with their responsibilities, they deserve incarceration at Guantanamo—I speak figuratively.  But those who survive a more general repudiation of Republicans in the next two elections and take office in a Congress controlled in both chambers by Democrats should be held accountable and disciplined.

 

But, first, if they have the numbers in both chambers, Democrats should immediately impeach Trump.  They should make it clear that they are prepared to impeach down the line—Vance, Johnson, Thune—until they can agree that someone in the line of succession can conduct the office of the presidency within the law.  If Trump preemptively pardons Musk and members of his administration, Democrats should, in the tradition of the Nuremberg trials, establish a category of crimes against the country in order to prosecute those who, even if pardoned, have acted deliberately to the detriment of the country.  Second, they should impeach the deserving members of his cabinet, foremost among them—Bondi, Gabbard, Hegseth, Noem—for lying to the Senate in their confirmation hearings and breaches of the law.  Third, they should impeach two Supreme Court Justices: Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.  Fourth, they should expel those representatives and senators who were involved in planning or supporting the 6 January insurrection or defied subpoenas from the House 6 January Select Committee (e.g., Jim Jordan).  They should discipline those who have repeatedly violated House or Senate decorum (e.g., Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Nancy Mace).  Impeachment, expulsion, and censure are insufficient punishment for the damage done to the country by Republican officials, but it may be enough to discourage others of their ilk from attempting another political insurrection.

 

At the same time, Democrats should propose constitutional amendments to define the president’s status under the law, to qualify the president’s pardon power, to eliminate Executive Orders without the advance unanimous consent of Congressional leadership, to establish the independence of the Department of Justice (and the FBI), to define the right to vote as an inalienable adjunct of citizenship with uniform standards for registration (identification) and access to voting, and to reverse various court rulings inimical to democracy (e.g., Citizens United).  They should also propose legislation to make public threats to officers of the court—judges, prosecutors, staff, and their families—felonies.  They should reconstitute departments and agencies undermined or destroyed by the Trump administration.

 

Without such a reckoning, Republicans cannot be made truly accountable and appropriately punished for their conduct betraying their oaths of office.  Those who want to restore integrity in government should make the rule of law prevail by applying it to Republican malefactors in proportion to the gravity of their crimes.  Democrats should embrace “eternal vigilance” as “the price of freedom” to ensure that Republicans or a party with a different name but similar tendencies does not emerge to repeat this sorry history because Democrats did not learn from it.