COMMENTARY – During this pandemic, when many college students are learning remotely and are not on campus, anti-Semitic harassment is still a serious problem.  Much of it continues to be perpetrated by the anti-Israel hate group that calls itself "Students for Justice in Palestine" (SJP).  Recently, SJP bullied a Jewish student at Tufts University, threatening him with a disciplinary hearing and removal from his student government position, simply because he challenged SJP's lies in a student referendum targeting Israel.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

Given how dire campus anti-Semitism continues to be, and how the harassment of Jewish students is so linked to demonizing and delegitimizing Israel, it's disgraceful that a handful of far-Left Jewish and allegedly pro-Israel groups are opposing the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism.  They don't want universities to use it. They don't want states and cities to adopt it.  And they want the federal government to stop considering it.

The IHRA definition includes a core and uncontroversial description of anti-Semitism as "a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews."  Importantly, it also includes contemporary examples of anti-Semitism, some relating to Israel. The definition has been widely accepted and for good reason:  It's an excellent tool for students, educators, administrators, government officials and others to identify and understand anti-Semitism in all its forms.

Yet a few far-left groups that claim they're Jewish and pro-Israel have vocally opposed the adoption of the IHRA definition, among them J Street, Americans for Peace Now, New Israel Fund, T'ruah and IfNotNow.  They claim that considering the definition threatens constitutionally protected speech.

The claim is false.  The State Department has been using a version of the IHRA definition for years, without infringing on free speech.  In 2018, triggered by the Zionist Organization of America's civil rights action against Rutgers University, the US Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights declared that it also uses the IHRA definition when it considers anti-Semitism cases filed under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

Since then, the ZOA's Title VI actions against the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Duke University were favorably resolved, as was another Title VI action against NYU.  In not one of these cases was the IHRA definition used to stifle free speech or debate about Israel.  It can't be; the definition must be used consistent with the free speech protections guaranteed under the First Amendment.

These opponents of the IHRA definition also claim that its adoption will make it harder to identify and confront genuine instances of anti-Semitism, and won't keep our communities safer.  These claims don't make sense.  Some anti-Semitism is easily identified – a swastika defacing a synagogue or a Hillel building, or white supremacists calling for the exclusion of Jews.  What's harder is identifying when anti-Israelism crosses the line into anti-Semitism.

In our experience, it's overwhelmingly this form of anti-Semitism that Jewish college students are enduring, to the detriment of their emotional health and well-being.  That's what makes accepting the IHRA definition so important.  It illustrates when criticism of Israel may be masking Jew-hatred so that the problem can be more effectively addressed.

These radical left-wing groups opposing the definition have unfortunately resorted to politicizing how we confront anti-Semitism.  They claim that the IHRA definition is a tool of the far-right.  That's false.

The definition's acceptance is wide, growing and diverse.  In addition to the US government, approximately 30 other countries have already adopted it. US states are adopting it. Cities around the world have adopted it, too, as have colleges and universities. There's a national student movement urging the definition's adoption, and they have already achieved that goal at several US and Canadian schools.

The Global Imams Council, comprised of Muslim religious leaders from all denominations, adopted the definition.  Even the sports world has begun adopting it.  Recently, Secretary of State Antony Blinken confirmed that the Biden administration "enthusiastically embraces" the IHRA definition, including the examples of anti-Semitism relating to Israel.  The notion that the definition is a tool of the far-Right is patently false.

It's obvious why J Street and a handful of other viciously anti-Israel groups would oppose the IHRA definition and are worried about its wide and growing acceptance. As the definition is embraced and more people understand that certain criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic, the truth about radical left-wing groups like J Street will be exposed.  The definition will help others see that J Street's "pro-Israel, pro-peace" mantra is a sham, given this group's incessant focus on condemning Israel and undermining US support for the Jewish state.  These radical left groups will lose credibility and valuable alliances.

Furthermore, far-left groups like J Street partner with anti-Israel and anti-Semitic groups on campus, like SJP.  They must also be worried that as the IHRA definition gains acceptance, students and others will come to see the truth about SJP and reject its false, hateful and divisive messages about Israel.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

Fortunately, J Street and its ilk comprise a small minority of opponents to the IHRA definition.  Those of us who are genuinely committed to identifying and battling anti-Semitism in all its forms – including when it's masked as criticism of Israel – should continue to encourage using this important tool, and to call out the false claims of those allegedly Jewish and pro-Israel groups that actually focus on condemning the Jewish state and advocating for its enemies.

Morton A. Klein is National President of the Zionist Organization of America, the oldest pro-Israel group in the US.

Susan B. Tuchman, Esq. is Director of the ZOA Center for Law and Justice.

The post Far-Left Jewish groups' objection to IHRA's definition of anti-Semitism is disgraceful appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Weiss paid a price for expressing those views. In her resignation letter, she revealed "constant bullying" she endured from her colleagues at the NYT. They called her "a Nazi and a racist," a "liar" and a "bigot." They criticized her for "writing about the Jews again." Some colleagues tried to marginalize Weiss, "badgering" co-workers simply for being friendly to her. Instead of using Slack, an online platform, as intended – as a vehicle for business colleagues to collaborate – Weiss's co-workers used it to post ax emojis next to her name.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter   

Weiss is surely not the only journalist who has paid such a price. That's why the Zionist Organization of America recently established a hotline for journalists who are facing bullying, harassment and even threats for calling out anti-Semitism, standing up for Jewish rights and telling the truth about Israel.

The ZOA has a long and effective record of fighting anti-Semitism and standing up for the rights of Jews and Israel. We do it on Capitol Hill, on campus and in the courts, with recent successes at the UNC and Duke University. Now we are also standing up for journalists and their right to express their views – and the public's right to hear them.

We at the ZOA know firsthand about the NYT's many failures when it comes to fair and accurate reporting about anti-Semitism, Jewish rights and Israel. In 2016, we sent a detailed letter to the chancellor and board of trustees at the City University of New York, describing the threats, harassment and intimidation that Jewish students were enduring at four CUNY schools. At Hunter College, for example, when students planned a rally to protest rising tuition and growing student debt, the anti-Semitic hate group that calls itself "Students for Justice in Palestine" (SJP) turned the rally into a vicious attack on Israel, "Zionists" and Jews.

In Facebook ads for the rally, SJP blamed the financial problems on "the Zionist administration" for hosting Birthright programs and study-abroad programs in "occupied Palestine" – meaning Israel. At the rally itself, SJP and its supporters screamed: "Jews out of CUNY!" "Jews are racist sons of bitches!" "I hope someone gets y'all!" "Go home!" and more. As one Jewish student was leaving the rally, he heard someone yell, "We should drag the Zionists down the street!" After the rally, another Hunter student wrote on Twitter, "Full-blown anti-Semitism allowed at my college. … I witnessed this and froze in fear."

These and many other chilling revelations in the ZOA's letter resulted in major news articles in The New York Post and New York's Daily News. The revelations were of such magnitude that CUNY's chancellor immediately ordered an independent investigation into anti-Semitism at CUNY.

Yet we never saw a single news article about the CUNY problems in the NYT. The New York Times never contacted us for information or ways to reach the many Jewish students who were targeted and bullied.

In 2018, the NYT did cover the Office for Civil Rights' decision to reopen the ZOA's civil-rights case against Rutgers University in New Jersey, where Jewish students faced threats, harassment and discrimination – again largely perpetrated by the anti-Israel group on campus. The Times reporter, however, called on the holiday of Rosh Hashanah seeking comments about OCR's decision, even though she knew that our office would not be open. In fact, her voicemail message acknowledged that she was calling on the holiday, as ours did that we would be unavailable for comment.

The NYT published the article about Rutgers on the second day of Rosh Hashanah. No surprise: It was biased and flawed. After the holiday, when we contacted the reporter and questioned why the NYT didn't wait to publish the article with input from the ZOA (with more than just quotes from a ZOA press release) and from Jewish students at Rutgers who were threatened and harassed, the reporter blamed her editors. She also promised another more comprehensive article, which never happened.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The New York Times deliberately published a one-sided and less informative article about the Jew-hatred at Rutgers. It didn't see fit to publish anything about the Jew-hatred at CUNY, which is right in the newspaper's own backyard. Why? Because that would have meant the Times' acknowledging an uncomfortable truth: that Israel-hating groups purportedly committed to Palestinian-Arab rights were in fact committed to bashing Jews and Israel, and causing Jewish students to feel unwelcome and unsafe on their college campuses. Weiss eloquently summed up the problem in a December 2019 opinion piece about how surging Jew-hatred is met with indifference: "[U]nless Jews are murdered by neo-Nazis, the one group everyone of conscience recognizes as evil, Jews' innocent murders, their beatings, their discrimination, the singling out of their state for demonization will be explained away."

The NYT and other media outlets must change their culture of intolerance and hostility for views that do not fit their desired narrative. To support that goal, the ZOA is standing up for journalists who, like Bari Weiss, are determined to speak the truth about anti-Semitism, Jewish rights and Israel – and who are disgracefully bullied and shunned for doing so.

Journalists who need help and support should contact the ZOA's hotline at 212-481-1500 or by emailing: info@zoa.org.

Susan B. Tuchman is director of the Zionist Organization of America's Center for Law and Justice. Morton A. Klein is the national president of the Zionist Organization of America.

The post ZOA announces hotline for journalists fighting anti-Semitism, Israel-bashing appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.