Five Jewish Federations in New Jersey issued a statement on Friday slamming the state legislature’s decision to table a bill intended to combat antisemitism.
The New Jersey General Assembly reportedly will not consider the legislation, which would have made the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism the standard of reference for determining discrimination against Jews, during this legislative term.
“This decision was a capitulation to political convenience over the fair treatment and protection of hundreds of thousands of New Jerseyans,” the Federations stated.
“It is incomprehensible that New Jersey’s legislature will not allow for the identification of bias and hatred crimes toward a New Jersey Jewish community of over 600,000, instead yielding to baseless opposition,” the group said, “in essence choosing to protect individuals charged with a crime over victims of antisemitic bias intimidation.”
The bipartisan bill had the support of 59 co-sponsors in the 80-seat assembly and was reported out of committee unanimously in July.
Politico first reported on Thursday that Craig Coughlin, the Assembly speaker and a Democrat, told the bill’s primary sponsor, Gary Schaer, a Democrat, that the IHRA legislation would not receive a vote in the legislature’s final session because it lacked “the necessary votes to get where we wanted to.”
New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, a Democrat, played a key role in ensuring the bill would not be put up for a vote, Jewish Insider reported on Friday. Unnamed sources told the publication that Murphy believed the vote could endanger incumbent Democrats vulnerable to primary challenges from the anti-Israel left.
Critics of the IHRA definition often focus on its contemporary examples as they relate to criticism of Israel.
The New Jersey bill notes that “singling out Israel for criticism or condemnation while ignoring similar actions by other nations is indicative of antisemitic bias, and holding Israel accountable for its policies or actions is not antisemitic if the critique is proportional, factual and consistent with expectations for other nations.”
The five Federations argued that the bill was intended to be a guide for state officials to determine anti-Jewish bias, not an effort to criminalize protected speech criticizing Israel.
“This timely legislation would have established a clear, non-binding state definition of antisemitism to serve as a critical advisory tool for law enforcement, public officials and educators in investigating hate crimes and acts of discrimination, while explicitly safeguarding constitutional free speech protections, including the right to criticize the government of Israel,” they stated.
The Combat Antisemitism Movement’s tracker of IHRA-related legislation records 37 states that have adopted the definition through legislation. The federal government has also done so through a Trump administration executive order.
