Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism Resource: Addressing Antisemitism at the Local Government Level

stop antisemitism

This resource was prepared in response to requests for guidance from our Reform Jewish communities and local leaders as to how to handle antisemitic actions, resolutions, and initiatives from local governmental entities, including city, town, and county councils, as well as school boards. It also provides insight on how to act in the face of these entities’ failure to respond effectively when antisemitic incidents occur within those governmental agencies or institutions, such as schools, for which they are responsible. Whether your local community is confronting an antisemitic incident now, or preparing should one arise in the future, this resource is meant to guide you on how to organize your efforts effectively, consistent with Reform Jewish values. 

Identifying an Initiative, Resolution, or Governmental Action as Antisemitic

Some context about antisemitism: Antisemitism is inherently a tool of extremist, anti-democratic systems that seek to degrade democratic processes and consolidate their own power. A socio-political climate that normalizes antisemitism also normalizes hate against other groups and vice-versa. Antisemitism is not simply a threat to Jews, but also a threat to the health of democracy overall. As Eric Ward, a leading thinker on hate movements and democracy, has written, “[Antisemitism] is actually utilizing bigotry toward the Jewish community in order to deconstruct democratic practices, and it does so by framing democracy as a conspiracy rather than a tool of empowerment or a functional tool of governance.”

Definitions and Examples

Multiple Jewish and non-Jewish entities have proposed definitions of antisemitism that seek to help identify, including with an eye to combatting, antisemitism. Among them are definitions proffered by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), T’ruah, Southern Poverty Law Center, the Jerusalem Declaration, the Nexus Document, and that of the Biden Administration’s National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism. We encourage you to consult any or all of these definitions for guidance. Each includes examples of antisemitism that may be helpful in evaluating your particular context or circumstance.

Israel

Particularly since the October 7, 2023 attacks and subsequent war between Israel and Hamas, questions have arisen about antisemitism as it relates to Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While criticism of Israel is not in of itself antisemitic, it can cross the line into antisemitism, especially when Israel is unfairly demonized or its right to exist is delegitimized. 

Protests against Israeli government policies or the government itself, pro-Palestine comments, advocating for Palestinian self-determination, and expressions of empathy for innocent Gazans and Palestinians in the West Bank, in and of themselves, are not antisemitic, though they may cause deep disagreement or discomfort.

Natan Sharansky, who faced antisemitism in the Soviet Union before he became a national leader in Israel, uses criteria he’s dubbed “the three Ds” as a test for antisemitism as it relates to Israel: 

  1. Delegitimizing or denying the Jewish people our right to self-determination.
  2. Demonizing Jews by portraying us as evil or blowing Israel's actions out of sensible proportion.
  3. Subjecting Israel to double standards.

Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions

BDS, which seeks to use economic actions against Israel, including singling out for divestment companies working in or doing business with Israel, is more likely to hinder rather than advance the peace process. In addition, the one-sided nature of these actions undermines their credibility. They resonate as discriminatory and conjure memories within the Jewish community of the anti-Israel boycott of past years that sought to de-legitimize the very existence of the State of Israel.

At the same time, we do not believe that all BDS efforts are antisemitic by default. As the Central Conference of American Rabbis stated in a 2016 resolution, “In singling out the Jewish State, BDS often opens the door to anti-Semitic rhetoric and activities and highlights modern anti-Semitic double standards.  While the BDS movement is not explicitly anti-Semitic, BDS supporters and leaders have made anti-Semitic statements and anti-Semitic incidents have occurred alongside BDS campaigns.”

For more resources on the Reform Movement’s perspective on antisemitism and its intersection with anti-Israel rhetoric, please refer to:

Understanding Local Government

Local governments across North America differ in name, structure and style. They encompass cities, counties, towns, villages, school boards and more.

Learn more about the U.S. local government context:

Learn more about Canadian models of local government.

Rules for U.S. 501(c)(3) non-profits

While we cannot offer legal advice and recommend you consult your congregation’s counsel, a charitable organization qualified under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, such as a congregation and its clergy, along with other nonprofit charitable organizations, may participate in public policy advocacy (lobbying) to a limited degree. This can include supporting or opposing legislation and other governmental actions but excludes partisan political activity. Despite ballot initiatives often being included on election ballots, advocacy for or against them is allowed and treated the same as advocacy on legislation.  However, permissible lobbying activities must be no more than an ‘insubstantial’ part of the total activity of the organization. Non-partisan civic engagement, such as voter registration and education, is not considered lobbying and is therefore not limited. 

Best practices include: 

  • Taking positions on public policy issues including where deeply held values are implicated, such as fighting antisemitism through ballot initiatives and legislation.
  • Public education campaigns, petitioning, joining coalitions, hosting forums, speaking at government meetings, and meeting with elected officials.
  • Holding educational workshops and other events that are intended to inform the public about a policy issue, including a ballot initiative.
  • Adult education series or workshops on civic engagement that involve local council members, school board members, and other office holders sharing about their positions and responsibilities.

Rules for Canadian Charitable Organizations

According to Revenue Canada:

Advocacy – charities may advocate to retain, oppose, or change a law, policy, or decision, of any level of government in Canada, or a foreign country.

Mobilizing others – charities may call on supporters or the general public to contact elected officials, public officials, political parties, and candidates of all parties to express their support for, or opposition to, a particular law, policy, or decision of any level of government in Canada or a foreign country.

The Income Tax Act prohibits a charity from devoting any part of its resources to the direct or indirect support of, or opposition to, any political party or candidate for public office.

Any activity that supports or opposes a political party or candidate is not a [public policy dialogue and development activity] PPDDA, and a charity cannot carry on such an activity to any degree. 

Organizing an Effective Coalition to Address Antisemitism

The ability to proactively develop communal relationships and leverage a big-tent coalition is vital to create change. 

Finding allies and building relationships based on shared values or achieving tactical goals:

  • Learn about your local elected officials and connect with them.
    • Use any opportunity to build a relationship with elected officials at all levels, from Mayor to Zoning Board of Appeals. Your local officials should be happy to connect with constituents and leaders in their community.
  • Work across lines of difference.
    • We limit our ability to make change by excluding potential allies. If someone is willing to work together respectfully where there is common cause, embrace their partnership.
    • There are many areas where the policy priorities of potential allies overlap with our Reform Jewish values, such as countering racism, hunger, gun violence, and protecting immigrants. These are opportunities to build partnership.
    • Building alliances must also embody the bedrock principle of coalition building: If you want to have a friend, be a friend. If you want allies to stand for your core interests and needs, including efforts to counter antisemitism, stand with them on their core issues on which you do not disagree.
  • Every community is different, but here are a few places you may find allies:
    • Synagogues: Regardless of denominational affiliation and specific views, all Jews have a vested interest in countering antisemitism.
    • Non-Jewish congregations: Shared religious values are a powerful foundation on which to build a united front on local issues.
      • Proactive engagement with the clergy, lay leaders, and congregants of other faith communities will pay dividends if/when you encounter antisemitic sentiments.
    • Jewish Federations and Jewish Community Relations Councils
    • Local Interfaith Organizations
    • Everywhere! Sometimes our strongest allies come from unexpected places, so use every connection your community or coalition has to continue building relationships.

Maintaining Your Coalition

  • Do not make assumptions. Have regular, honest conversations with the members of your coalition to make certain you are on the same page.
  • Resist the temptation to subject partners to “purity tests.” We do not have to agree with our allies on every issue. Remember the value of your relationship and make an effort to come to an agreement.
  • Even if you cannot agree with an ally on an important issue, do not burn bridges. Some issues may be contentious, emotionally charged, and preclude agreement, but keep lines of communication open. There may be times when it is better to absent yourself from a particular event or program, rather than exit the relationship or coalition entirely.
  • The bigger your tent, the more power you hold.

In the rare cases when a group holds views that are so contrary to your own core values that it precludes working together even on issues of shared concern, act with care. Remember the importance of nuanced thought and decision making. Though there may be times when it is necessary, refusing to allow groups into our coalitions on ideological bases could open the door to bans that, in the future, are applied to pro-Israel groups.  

Considering Your Strategy

There are tools to leverage to advocate against local measures of concern. Here are some that you may want to consider.

  • Meet with your local officials before an issue arises.
    • Bring together a diverse array of coalition partners to meet with the local officials considering the issue or issue or measure in question. Make your case to them and ask for their support in defeating the measure, if not pulling it from consideration altogether.
    • Even if you cannot defeat a harmful measure, you can leverage relationships with elected officials to amend the measure in a way that makes it more agreeable/less harmful.
  • Circulate a petition.
    • Drafting a petition, gathering signatures, and presenting it to your local officials are ways to demonstrate support for your cause.
  • Organize public comments.
    • Public comments are one of the primary ways that local governments hear from their constituents.
    • Prepare members of your coalition with talking points and advice on how to write and deliver a public comment.
    • Be sure to understand the rules about public comments for the specific public forum where you plan to deliver them. Rules can include time limits and required pre-registration. Check the local government’s website and recent meeting agendas for those details. If the instructions are unclear, call the Clerk for that local government or legislative body.
    • You can present public comments during the designated time period in your local government’s meetings.
    • When considering contentious topics, remember that sometimes local government meetings can grow rowdy, uncomfortable, and potentially unsafe for you and the members of your coalition. If you have reasons to believe that a meeting will get out of hand or become personally unsafe, consider submitting your comments in writing.
    • You can submit public comments in writing to your local government.
      • If you cannot be present at a meeting, have not been allotted time to speak, want to ensure that your thoughts are part of the public record, or are uncomfortable with public speaking, consider submitting public comments in writing.
      • Check your local government’s website to see where to send comments. Instructions are often listed at the top of each meeting agenda and make note of any deadlines for submission, which may be before the public meeting itself.
      • Consider submitting comments in writing even when also delivering an oral public statement.
      • Remember that public comments are public documents - many public meetings are broadcast live, with recordings then posted online. Written comments are also public documents that can be requested by any member of the public.
  • Release an open letter.
    • Similar to a petition, you can draft an open letter, collect signatures, and publish it. The key difference is that while a petition can be sent privately to elected officials, an open letter is designed to send a message to the public and draw local media attention.
  • Hold a rally or protest.
    • You can organize your allies to show up at a designated location at an agreed-upon time to demonstrate your views.
    • This is a very public measure, and may engender public responses from those who disagree, including counter-protestors.
    • Coordinate with local law enforcement so that they are prepared to help keep participants safe.
    • Public action will make your issue more salient to the public. That may or may not be beneficial, as it could mobilize your opposition and make the issue more intractable.
    • How to Organize a Protest from Activist Handbook
  • Organize a social media campaign
  • Investigate how well your local officials respond to different methods of outreach, like e-mail, postcards, and phone calls.
    • Some elected officials may only be receptive to constituents rather than people from outside the community. Use this knowledge to shape your actions and strategies.
  • Seek press attention.
    • Reach out to local media to amplify your message.
    • For tips on developing media relationships and getting good media coverage, see:
    • Media coverage increases the salience of this issue to the public, which may not be helpful toward your goals. Getting lots of press attention can bring out supporters; it could also bring out more opposition.

Articulating Your Message

Having a clear, effective message is essential. Here are resources for strong messaging: both in general and specifically related to antisemitism:

Talking Points

Work with partners to draft the message that works best for your local context. Here are several potential messages to consider, depending on the audience and circumstances:

  • Hate against one community will make all communities less safe. Standing together across lines of difference whenever possible is important in the fight against hate.
  • Localities do not set foreign policy. But local resolutions and actions can impact the local community.
    • Consider whether a proposed resolution will invite an intense, drawn-out debate that will distract from addressing issues over which local officials have greater influence.
    • Work to ensure any resolution reflects thoughtful and respectful language rather than divisive and harmful rhetoric.
    • Consider whether a proposed resolution will invite an intense, drawn-out debate that will distract from addressing issues over which local officials have greater influence.
    • If your local government does not have a history of commenting on issues of international policy, flag that this is an unprecedented step and suggest that proponents seek alternative outlets. 

Resources

Crafted by the Commission on Social Action

Heidi Segal, Chair 

Marc Landis, Task Force Chair
Jason Weiner, Task Force Vice Chair

Peter Buchsbaum, Judy Caplan, Steve Fadem, David Fishback, Rabbi Josh Fixler, Adam Friedman, Shayna Han, Alyse Kirschen, Jan Marion, Zachary Schaffer, Rabbi Josh Whinston

Staff: 
Barbara Weinstein, CSA Director
Mason Purdy, RAC Legislative Assistant
CJ Wechsler, RAC Legislative Assistant
Rabbi Toby Manewith, URJ/ADL Partnership Manager

Addendum: International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Frequently Asked Questions

What is IHRA?  The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) is an intergovernmental organization with 35 Member Countries and 9 Observer Countries. (See the full list of members and observers.) It was created in 1988 to “strengthen, advance and promote Holocaust education, remembrance, and research worldwide...” 

What is the IHRA definition of antisemitism? The definition was originally drafted in the mid-2000s, primarily by staff at the American Jewish Committee (including Ken Stern and Rabbi Andrew Baker). In 2016, IHRA adopted the definition as a “non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism”: “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.” 

IHRA also included a series of examples to help illustrate the various forms antisemitism can take. The list was explicitly not intended to be exhaustive. It should be noted that there is little debate over the merits of the wording of the IHRA definition itself. The debates are first, over whether it should be used as a standard for legal action; second, how helpful and up-to-date are the examples; and third, the belief from critics that, regardless of its intent, the definition has been used as a justification to restrict legitimate speech and protests. 

How many countries have adopted or endorsed IHRA’s definition? 44 UN member nations have adopted or endorsed the definition. The full list of countries, including the U.S. and Canada, is here. The definition has also been endorsed by the UN, EU, some local and state governments, as well as some private institutions, such as colleges and universities, among others. 

Have the URJ and CCAR endorsed the IHRA definition? Yes. In January 2021, the URJ, CCAR, WRJ, and ARZA issued a joint statement endorsing the IHRA definition as a tool for monitoring and raising awareness of antisemitism. URJ and CCAR have not supported codification of IHRA. As said in the joint statement, “The IHRA definition can be an effective educational, reporting, and training tool to enhance key steps the Congress and [White House] Administration should take to combat antisemitism including: improved reporting; enhanced security of Jewish communal institutions and those of other vulnerable groups; and urging social media platforms to more forcefully stem online antisemitism, Holocaust denial, and racism more generally.” 

What concerns have been raised about codifying the IHRA definition in law? As noted above, the IHRA definition’s drafters explicitly intended for it to be non-legally binding. The examples used to illustrate the definition seek to clarify when Jews are targeted for harassment because of their real or actual connection to Israel or Zionism. Yet, we know that a stated commitment to Israel’s well-being does not preclude antisemitic attitudes. And questioning Israeli government policies does not automatically denote one’s views as antisemitic.  

In addition, several of the definition’s examples involve protected speech. Our commitment to principles of free speech and concerns about the potential abuse of the definition compelled us to urge its use only as intended: as a guide and an awareness-raising tool.  

If codified in law, the definition could trigger potentially problematic, punitive action to circumscribe speech. We have seen such efforts aimed at college students and human rights activists. If the effect of application of the IHRA definition is to limit free speech, it threatens to divide the broad coalition needed to combat antisemitism. 

Are there other definitions of antisemitism? Yes. Multiple Jewish and non-Jewish entities have proposed definitions of antisemitism that, like the IHRA definition, seek to help identify, with an eye to combatting, antisemitism. These include definitions or concise descriptions of antisemitism that have been proffered by Nexus, T’ruah, Southern Poverty Law Center, the Jerusalem Declaration, the U.S. government’s National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, and more. Together, these definitions and others demonstrate the many ways antisemitic ideas are used to foment hatred and division. In particular, the Nexus definition, issued in 2021 by the Knight Program on Media and Religion at the Annenberg School of Communication and Journalism at USC, was cited by the Biden White House’s National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism. 

What is the root of the debate over IHRA? The examples. In fact, most of the definitions referenced above are quite similar and relatively interchangeable. The debate focuses on the examples and descriptions of when criticism of Israel or Zionism crosses the line into antisemitism. IHRA’s examples were written more than 20 years ago, mostly aimed at the European context. When the definition references, without clarification, barring a double standard in criticizing Israel, that example is sometimes misused by Israel supporters to accuse anyone who criticizes Israel, but not other abusers of human rights, as being antisemitic. When the example says any comparison with Nazis is antisemitic, for those who argue that some of Israel’s more egregious policies of the occupation are similar to Nazi policies of the 1930s (not trying to compare it to the Holocaust), they are accused of antisemitism.  

Many of the more recent, alternative definitions and descriptions try to draw a clearer line and offer more current examples (e.g. when the use of the terms “apartheid” and “anti-Zionism” or support for BDS cross the line into antisemitism and when they do not).  

What are the major arguments for IHRA’s codification? / When used as intended, as a non-legally binding standard, what are the arguments for using IHRA for educational, monitoring or training purposes? Some proponents believe that at a time when acts of antisemitism are occurring at an alarmingly greater rate than any moment in more than 70 years, it is essential to be able to identify antisemitism as a legal standard to combat it. Others argue that even when used for non-legal purposes, using more than one definition confuses people. The broad endorsement of IHRA by governments at all levels and across continents, as well as by academic institutions, private corporations, and others, demonstrates to many IHRA’s value. People in support of codifying IHRA argue that the examples of how the definition should be applied, (which the IHRA definition cautions need to be read in the context of the particular circumstances to which it is being applied) remain an effective guide for those countering antisemitism. 

Supporters of IHRA’s codification also refute the argument that IHRA’s codification will chill free speech. As supporters argue, the definition makes clear that criticism of Israel that is similar to criticism of other nations is not antisemitic; as such, criticism of Israeli policies or the Israeli government would not open the door to successful prosecution under IHRA.  

What are the major criticisms of codifying IHRA or for using more than one definition for non-legally binding training and educational purposes? A key concern about codifying IHRA into law is its potential to chill academic freedom. There has long been debate (within and beyond the Jewish community) about whether criticism of Israel and/or Zionism is a form of antisemitism. IHRA includes examples of ways in which such criticism can, indeed, be antisemitic. As Ken Stern, one of the IHRA definition’s drafters, argued in his 2017 congressional testimony, IHRA’s codification can functionally limit academic freedom. Rather than engage with challenging issues in a meaningful way, members of the academic community may choose to stay silent out of fear of legal persecution, and our society overall will suffer.  

Secondly, it is notable that the effort to define antisemitism (as a legal standard or non-legal standard) is unprecedented: there is no other area of anti-discrimination policy or law where there has been an effort to demand a single definition of any of the varied forms of discrimination. As a result, some years ago, when the push to get IHRA adopted by governments and institutions went into high gear, several universities adopted it. Yearly, that number has decreased and relatively few have done so in more recent years. This is because of the debate over free speech and the concern that adopting any definition of hate against Jews would likely evoke numerous similarly contentious debates, with every other interest group suffering from discrimination demanding the definition of the hate targeting them be adopted.  

Finally, whether justified or not, because of the reasons stated above, debates over whether to adopt any definition, to adopt IHRA and no other definition, or to adopt several definitions, and if so, which – have intensified, even within the Jewish community. These debates are also present within broader interfaith, civil rights, and progressive coalitions, and have increasingly become a wedge issue that conservatives use to try to divide liberalallies in the fight against antisemitism.  

What do mainstream national Jewish organizations say about the codification of IHRA? Several mainstream national Jewish organizations (ADL, American Jewish Committee, JCPA, the Reform Movement, National Council of Jewish Women, etc.) oppose codifying IHRA into law for the reasons discussed in this memo. All believe that IHRA, when used properly, has an important role to play. Two caveats: Some of the groups whose position is opposed to codification, nonetheless, support legislation that seems to do so. There is, in addition, a division among these groups as to how to weigh the pros and cons of singling out IHRA as the only definition to push for in training, education, and monitoring, as well as how to weigh the benefits of its proper usage against the political divisiveness it engenders. 

What does the URJ/CCAR recommend when it comes to government (local, state, or national) efforts to adopt a definition of antisemitism? The global response to Israel’s current war in Gaza has precipitated ever rising levels of antisemitic actions and expressions. IHRA’s definition is one of several that are useful in the fight against antisemitism, and we strongly support the IHRA definition for use as a monitoring, training and educational tool, as was the goal of its drafters. However, we do not support its codification in law.  

Understanding the deep pain and concern we are all experiencing at this time, our recommendation remains that if a state or local government agency or local organization wants to codify IHRA or adopt IHRA’s definition as the sole standard to determine when something is antisemitism, it should be opposed. If they want to adopt IHRA’s definition as a symbol of communal opposition to antisemitism, or for educational and training purposes, or as one of several definitions to look at for legal action, that effort should not be opposed and may even be welcomed as a sign of solidarity with the Jewish community.  

We recognize that sometimes it is difficult to distinguish when it is or is not a “binding legal standard.”  A proposal by a local, state, or federal legislative body that mandates IHRA as the sole definition will impact all people living under the laws it establishes. That is why actions by lawmakers are of greater concern than similar proposals from non-governmental entities (schools, civic organizations, private businesses, or non-profits), which may be cause for concern but are more limited in their reach.   

At the same time, it is important when evaluating proposals to carefully consider what the effects of the proposal would be. If IHRA is the only definition to be used for its intended purposes, it may easily slip into being treated as a legal standard that determines when antisemitism spills into being a hate crime or discrimination. Is IHRA being established as the single definition, as a preferred definition, or as one of several definitions? Each situation will require a nuanced, appropriate response.  

 What if the proposal calls on a government or non-government entity to “endorse” or “adopt” IHRA but not to “codify” it?  What if a law or government regulation is passed (as is the national standard for Title VI discrimination in the educational arena) where it says “IHRA must be considered” in deciding whether antisemitism is occurring? It is legally binding in the sense of insisting IHRA be considered in making the determination, but it is not mandating that it be actually used. Is that a legally binding standard that IHRA warns against? There are not clear answers. In general, we urge you to engage early in such deliberations in your community to urge that such ambiguity be avoided, or we urge you to push for more than one definition to be considered. At times when political pressure mounts to come out favoring one of these ambiguous formulations, you may decide it is wiser to endorse that and then use your influence to ensure it not be misused when applied in practice, so as to avoid the slide into becoming the legal standard.