Dear Mayor @StevenFulop, Your stance against the IHRA bill is...
Mark Goldfeder@MarkGoldfeder
84 views
Mar 17, 2025
~6 min read
Advertisement
1
Dear Mayor @StevenFulop,
Your stance against the IHRA bill is dangerously misguided. You claim “most people in the Jewish community haven’t read it” but it genuinely seems like you are the one who hasn't. How can I be so sure?
I wrote it.
Let me explain:
rb.gy/7guvn8
Your stance against the IHRA bill is dangerously misguided. You claim “most people in the Jewish community haven’t read it” but it genuinely seems like you are the one who hasn't. How can I be so sure?
I wrote it.
Let me explain:
rb.gy/7guvn8
2
@StevenFulop First, to be clear, this is not a debate- the bill is literally in black and white here- feel free to read along:
pub.njleg.state.nj.us/Bills/2024/A40…
pub.njleg.state.nj.us/Bills/2024/A40…
3
@StevenFulop Your main contention is that the bill some infringes on free speech. That is patently false.
Let's start with the operative language on lines 10-15:
Let's start with the operative language on lines 10-15:
4
In reviewing, investigating, or deciding whether there has been a violation of any policy, law, or regulation prohibiting discriminatory acts...
5
@StevenFulop the State shall take into consideration the definition of anti-Semitism adopted by the IHRA for purposes of determining whether the alleged act was motivated by anti-Semitic intent.
6
There is a difference between discriminatory acts (which can and should be regulated) and speech (which cannot and should not be regulated).
The bill literally only addresses ACTS.
You would know this, if you read it.
But there is more...
The bill literally only addresses ACTS.
You would know this, if you read it.
But there is more...
7
To the extent that there was ANY ambiguity about what the word ACTS means, lines 16-19 contain an additional savings clause, which explicitly says that it cannot refer to speech:
8
@StevenFulop "Nothing contained in this section, shall be construed to diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, or paragraph 6 of Article I of the New Jersey State Constitution."
It simply could not be clearer.
It simply could not be clearer.
9
@StevenFulop Why is this important?
10
Yes, hate speech is protected by the First Amendment. But what we are seeing now, particularly on campuses, illustrates the very real danger of what happens when perpetrators are allowed to confuse speech with acts and conflate politics with demonizing and discriminatory hatred.
11
Assault and battery, trespassing, vandalism, breaking and entering, destruction of property, harassment and true threats are all examples of unlawful antisemitic acts that have happened in just the last few weeks, and that can and should be stopped.
12
Anyone can say whatever they want, however abhorrent, about Jews or the Jewish state; all this bill says is you cannot then unlawfully act on that hate and pretend it is not antisemitism.
13
@StevenFulop The only ones who should be upset by this bill are those antisemites who were planning to do so. That is why it is not surprising that CAIR has come out to support you.
cairaction.org/press-release/…
cairaction.org/press-release/…
14
@StevenFulop Hint- when the vast majority of the Jewish community is on one side of an antisemitism issue, and you are standing on the other side with the unindicted co-conspirators in the largest terror finance case in American history- maybe it is time to reevaluate your position.
15
@StevenFulop Practically speaking, the bill itself is actually quite narrow. All it does is ensure that when analyzing the intent behind unlawful discriminatory actions (not speech) that target Jewish people,
16
@StevenFulop when there is an allegation that the victim was chosen because of an aspect of their Jewish identity, authorities should consider (as rebuttable, contextual evidence) the world’s most well-accepted definition of antisemitism.
17
@StevenFulop The amount of pushback is proportionate to how badly it is needed.
18
@StevenFulop You also claim the bill is not necessary because there is already hate-crimes legislation in NJ.
You are missing the point sir.
You are missing the point sir.
19
@StevenFulop Recent surveys have shown that roughly half of the U.S. population does not even know what antisemitism is.
sun-sentinel.com/2020/10/27/sur…
sun-sentinel.com/2020/10/27/sur…
20
That is (charitably) why the laws are not being enforced- and why this bill is so important.
21
@StevenFulop Because Jewish identity is so multifaceted, without a standard definition for authorities to reference, antisemites can hide behind the ambiguity, commit heinous acts with impunity, then claim it was not antisemitism because it was not based on this or that characteristic.
22
@StevenFulop New Jersey has seen an unprecedented spike in antisemitic assaults, and vandalism- acts by the way, not speech- and yet very few have been labeled and prosecuted correctly.
nj.com/news/2024/04/a…
nj.com/news/2024/04/a…
23
@StevenFulop This bill would help. Why fight it?
24
@StevenFulop You claim that having a bill to specifically protect Jewish people plays into stereotypes that Jewish people “think that they’re better than others, or they’re unique, or they’re different, or they have a different set of standards.” Wrong again.
25
@StevenFulop The bill does not provide any special treatment for Jewish people. Nor does it add any new crimes, classes, punishments, or enhancements, or revise any of the well-established standards and long-standing rules for determining what is or is not considered conduct versus speech.
26
All it does is solve an existing equal protection problem. It is about Jewish equality, not exceptionalism.
27
@StevenFulop Finally, you seem to have completely misunderstood the purpose of this bill. It is not about protecting Israel from criticism- it is about protecting Jews in NJ from discriminatory acts- Jews in NJ who are sometimes targeted because of a real or perceived connection to Israel.
28
There are yet another two safe harbor provisions in IHRA itself, one which says that “criticism for Israel similar to that leveled against any other country” is not antisemitism,
29
as well as an express caveat that all of the examples given, including the ones about Israel, “could, taking into account the overall context,” be antisemitic.
Context is crucial here, as it is in all instances of alleged discrimination, and IHRA well accounts for it.
Context is crucial here, as it is in all instances of alleged discrimination, and IHRA well accounts for it.
30
The reason the examples about Israel are provided is explicitly not because all criticism of Israel is antisemitic, but because there are those who falsely claim that nothing can ever cross the line, and use their anti-Zionism as an excuse to target Jewish people.
31
EVEN SO- i.e. even if a person said the most vile antisemitic things, against Jews, the Jewish State or both- this bill would not apply! The bill only uses the definition to assess intent after there was an accompanying unlawful act which is not protected by the First Amendment.
32
Wait, you might ask, isn't that using speech to determine intent behind unlawful acts?
Yes, that is how all anti-discrimination laws work: If, for example, you yell a racial slur and then attack a minority, that slur may be used as evidence of racially motivated intent.
Yes, that is how all anti-discrimination laws work: If, for example, you yell a racial slur and then attack a minority, that slur may be used as evidence of racially motivated intent.
33
@StevenFulop A unanimous Supreme Court ruling in Wisconsin vs. Mitchell (1993) held that when it comes to evaluating discriminatory actions “The First Amendment does not prohibit the evidentiary use of speech to prove motive or intent.”
law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-…
law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-…
34
@StevenFulop To be clear, I do not think that @stevenfulop is in any way antisemitic.
I think that he, along with many others in his party, has been mislead by antisemites trying to create carveouts for their favorite kinds of antisemitism.
I think that he, along with many others in his party, has been mislead by antisemites trying to create carveouts for their favorite kinds of antisemitism.
35
@StevenFulop But thank God there are other candidates like @RepJoshG, a Harvard educated lawyer who knows the difference between acts and speech, and who has always publicly led the charge to protect the Jewish community both nationally and at the state level.
gottheimer.house.gov/posts/release-…
gottheimer.house.gov/posts/release-…
36
@StevenFulop @RepJoshG Nor, by the way is this bill controversial. The vast majority of US states already use the IHRA in this way (see here for a refutation of these same tired arguments that CAIR made in Georgia two years ago before the bill was passed)
x.com/MarkGoldfeder/…
x.com/MarkGoldfeder/…
37
@StevenFulop @RepJoshG The federal government also uses IHRA. In fact, it may be the only issue that the Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations all agreed on!
38
@StevenFulop @RepJoshG Bottom line- you cannot fight what you cannot define.
Valid monitoring, informed analysis, and effective policy-making all require uniform definitions.
Valid monitoring, informed analysis, and effective policy-making all require uniform definitions.
39
@StevenFulop @RepJoshG Governors have a responsibility to protect their citizens from acts of hate and bigotry motivated by discriminatory animus- including antisemitism- and NJ deserves a Governor who recognizes and embraces that responsibility.
