In Effect

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.

This antisemitism redefinition executive order directs all state agencies to adopt and use the distorted IHRA definition of antisemitism, including its contemporary examples that target advocacy for Palestinian rights. State agencies are required to consider the IHRA definition for the purposes of determining whether an alleged act of discrimination was motivated by antisemitic intent. Additionally, the order requires the IHRA definition to be used as an educational tool for anti-bias training for state personnel.

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. 

HB 2673 is an antisemitism redefinition bill that requires state agencies and public educational institutions to consider the distorted IHRA definition of antisemitism in assessing discrimination allegations in Tennessee’s public schools and universities. The bill specifically references the IHRA definition’s “contemporary examples of antisemitism” which include the following as 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 is so broad and vague that it could encompass nearly any criticism of Israel, circumscribing political speech in support of Palestinian rights, potentially in violation of the First Amendment. 

This antisemitism redefinition bill amends Iowa’s Civil Rights Act to adopt a distorted definition of antisemitism that could encompass any and all criticism of Israel, circumscribing protected political speech activities. The bill requires the consideration of the problematic IHRA definition, including the contemporary examples, such as “Applying a double standard to the State of Israel by requiring behavior of the State of Israel that is not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation,” when investigating discrimination complaints. As a result, political speech supportive of Palestinian rights could be deemed unlawful discrimination in the workplace, in public accommodations, and in educational institutions in Iowa. The governor signed the bill in March 2022, and it went into effect in July 2022. Related bill: SF 2183. 

This bill, formerly HSB 639, amends Iowa’s 2016 anti-boycott law (HF 2331), and expands the definition of companies subject to the law  to include a “wholly owned subsidiary, majority-owned subsidiary, parent company, or affiliate of such business or business.”

Iowa’s anti-boycott law requires state entities to create a blacklist of entities that boycott Israel and territories it occupies. The law prohibits state entities from investing in or contracting with blacklisted entities for contracts of $1,000 or more.  The amendments in HF 2373 are specifically aimed at Ben & Jerry’s and in response to the ice cream company’s 2021 announcement that it would stop doing business in illegal Israeli settlements. Ben and 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 bill went into effect in July 2022. Related bill: SF 2265.

This bill amends Ohio’s 2017 anti-boycott law (HB 476), which prohibits state contracts with companies, including sole proprietors, that boycott any jurisdiction with which Ohio can enjoy open trade, including Israel and the territories it occupies. The amendment expands the scope of the law to include state institutions of higher education in the definition of state agencies to which the anti-boycott law applies. In addition, this bill requires state schools to make free expression policies, including the anti-boycott law, available to all students and to create formal processes to adjudicate complaints of free speech violations by university employees. The bill went into effect in July 2022.

Originally a bill about the right to a jury trial, this antisemitism redefinition bill requires the use of a distorted definition of antisemitism in hate crimes reporting and sentencing. Criticism of Israel and advocacy for Palestinian rights could be used as evidence of a hate crime or result in more severe sentences. 

The bill amends Arizona law to include antisemitism as one of the categories of discrimination for which the state must collect bias crime statistics, but adopts the IHRA definition of antisemitism, including its problematic contemporary examples, which include “[a]pplying double standards [to Israel] by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation” and “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.” The bill requires courts to consider criticism of Israel that falls within the IHRA definition as an aggravating factor for sentencing in criminal convictions.

This bill is nearly identical to previous versions, HB 2683 and SB 1143, which failed to pass in 2020 after civil rights groups and advocates raised concerns over how the definition could be used to chill protected speech. The governor signed HB 2675 in April 2022, and it went into effect in September 2022. Related bills: SB 1713.