Resolution

SRes 254 is a non-binding resolution that encourages federal, state, and local government entities, as well as academic institutions, civil society organizations, and other relevant stakeholders, to “adopt and exclusively utilize” the distorted IHRA definition of antisemitism. The IHRA definition conflates criticism of Israel with anti-Jewish discrimination and has been deployed primarily to silence and punish advocacy for Palestinian rights. 

S Res 232 is a non-binding resolution that attempts to frame support for Palestinian rights as antisemitism. The statistics and many of the examples cited in the resolution rely on the same conflation at work in the distorted IHRA definition. S Res 232, for example, lists statements by Members of Congress that Benjamin Netanyahu is an “ethno-nationalist” and describing Israel as an “apartheid state” as instances of antisemitism. 

H Res 428 is a non-binding resolution that attempts to link an uptick antisemitic incidents in the US to criticism of Israel’s violent response to the 2021 Unity Intifada. The statistics cited for the alleged uptick rely on the same conflation at work in the distorted IHRA definition – and are produced by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a pro-police anti-Palestinian organization that has been widely criticized for undermining and attacking progressive movements and communities of color.

This non-binding resolution (initially labeled PR625) condemns antisemitism and endorses the distorted IHRA definition of antisemitism as providing “a road map to defining and rooting out Antisemitism.” The IHRA definition conflates criticism of Israel and Palestinians’ lived experience and history with anti-Jewish hate, infringing on protected expression and exacerbating anti-Palestinian racism.

AJR 211 is a joint resolution that adopts the distorted IHRA definition of antisemitism, including its contemporary examples targeting advocacy for Palestinian rights. These antisemitism redefinition efforts conflate criticism of Israel and Palestinians’ experience and history with anti-Jewish hate, infringing on protected expression and exacerbating anti-Palestinian racism. Related resolution: SJR 113.

SJR 113 is a joint resolution that adopts the distorted IHRA definition of antisemitism, including its contemporary examples targeting advocacy for Palestinian rights, into state law addressing discrimination as well as other areas of law. These antisemitism redefinition efforts conflate criticism of Israel and Palestinians’ experience and history with anti-Jewish hate, infringing on protected expression and exacerbating anti-Palestinian racism. Related resolution: AJR 211.

This non-binding resolution adopts the distorted IHRA definition of antisemitism. The definition includes the following problematic examples of antisemitism related to Israel: “[a]pplying a double standards” to Israel,” or “[d]enying the Jewish people the right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.” The definition has been widely criticized for its potential to circumscribe political speech in support of Palestinian rights in violation of the First Amendment. 

This non-binding resolution condemns boycott, divestment, and sanctions efforts and academic boycotts, in particular. The resolution falsely claims that boycotts for Palestinian rights foster discrimination against Jewish people. Similar resolutions were introduced in 2016 (HR250, which passed), and 2019 (HR40, which was defeated).

This non-binding resolution was introduced on the same day that Angela Davis was scheduled to speak at the University of South Carolina. The resolution describes Davis as “controversial,” and notes her involvement with the Communist Party, the Black Panther Party, and her support for defunding the police. The resolution also notes that she has endorsed boycotts for Palestinian rights, which the resolution falsely claims are “inspired by, and consistent with [the objectives of] Hamas.” While stopping short of an outright call to rescind her invitation to speak, the resolution calls on the university “to recognize speakers that support the mission of the university to support the historical understanding of [the] State and all perspectives that are a better and more faithful index to the needs of [the] State.” The resolution also notes an expectation “that all ideological points of view and all future speakers will be honored in like fashion in speaking at the University of South Carolina.”

This non-binding resolution takes aim at Ben & Jerry’s 2021 announcement that it would stop doing business in illegal Israeli settlements. Ben & Jerry’s and its London-based parent company, Unilever, have come under attack from Israel and its allies who have called for states to use anti-boycott laws to divest from Unilever. The resolution declares it inconsistent with Oklahoma’s anti-boycott law (HB 3967) for Oklahoma to invest any state funds in companies such as Unilever that decide not to do business with illegal settlements. Although Oklahoma’s anti-boycott law targets only state contracts and not investments, the resolution calls on the State Treasurer and Comptroller to divest the state and its retirement funds of all Unilever investments.