[T]here are three extant definitions [of antisemitism]. One is by IHRA. One is the Nexus definition and the other is the Jerusalem definition. [...] The chief author of the IHRA definition, Kenneth Stern, said don’t codify this. Don’t make it part of any law because these are examples that may indicate antisemitism but don’t necessarily in every case, and to enshrine it into law — he thought and a lot of other people think — would be destructive of free speech. It could make criticism, under certain circumstances, of Israeli government policy antisemitic, which it clearly isn’t.
[...]
[T]he point [of the bill] is to define antisemitism.
I suppose the purpose is to make it easier for the Office of Civil Rights to enforce the law. But the bill, for reasons unknown to me, enshrines the IHRA definition and says disregard the other two. There’s no rational reason for that. They’re all equally valid. They’re all made by committees of scholars and experts on antisemitism. Second of all, if you want to fight antisemitism through Congress, there are two things you can do. There is a bicameral, bipartisan bill, the Manning bill co-sponsored by many, many Democrats and Republicans in the House and in the Senate to set up a whole of government approach to antisemitism, which makes far more sense and doesn’t violate civil liberties.
The other thing you should do is increase the budget for OCR. The Office of Civil Rights is in charge of enforcing Title VI, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, etc. on college campuses. Because of the huge increase in antisemitism, the Biden administration last year for the fiscal year 2024 budget asked for a 25-percent increase in the OCR budget to enforce strictures against antisemitism. The Republicans pushed for a 25-percent cut in that budget — mostly, I think, because they were afraid it might be used not only against antisemitism, but against anti-LGBTQ prejudice. The result was that the funding stayed flat despite the need for an increase because of the increase in antisemitism.
[...]
The Republicans are [...] talking about antisemitism while indulging in antisemitism. Donald Trump has made antisemitic comments — you know Charlottesville, “There were fine people on both sides.” — and he’s been meeting with known antisemites. And they don’t say anything.
[...]
I am delighted we got 70 Democratic no votes. It’s more than I expected. It’s very easy to support something that claims to be against antisemitism, and it’s hard to start explaining to your constituents the nuances of why you didn’t.
[...]
I’ve taken unpopular stances before. I was the only Jewish member in the tri-state region to buck every single Jewish organization and support the Iran deal. I think I was proven right. I had a primary as a result of it. I did very well in that primary. If you’re serving in public office, you have to do it for the right reasons and you can’t only be a slave to reelection.
[...]
Netanyahu is doing everything he can to sabotage the peace talks, even at the cost of the hostages. He has every motive for keeping the war going as long as possible. Because when the war is over, number one, there’ll be a commission of inquiry. Number two, there’ll be an election, and he’s polling at about 20 percent. And number three, he’ll have to face the felony charges that are outstanding against him.
He’s insisting on this Rafah operation, which is absurd. You can’t defeat that kind of an enemy that way, as we discovered in Mosul and for that matter in Vietnam.
[...]
[Israel should not] go into Rafah; negotiate a cease-fire deal in which Arab troops from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, other places come in and occupy Gaza; start rebuilding it and have them work with the Palestinian Authority to reform it so that you can eventually have a Palestinian Authority in charge of Gaza and the West Bank and have a two-state solution. Now, Netanyahu does not want a two-state solution and this is something else he’s going to have to answer for once this war is over to the Israeli public. He was telling Qatar to fund Hamas before the war started. Why? Because he wanted Hamas to be in opposition to the Palestinian Authority so there couldn’t be a two-state solution.
[...]
In foreign policy, you have to work with a lot of people who you don’t like on other bases. To set up that peace structure, which would cement peace in the Middle East for a long time and also cement an alliance against potential Iranian aggression, is a very worthy objective and makes a lot of sense.
Politico
