Combating Antisemitism at Home: Strengthening U.S. Policies Through Education and Advocacy

Antisemitism is experiencing a troubling resurgence in the United States. This alarming rise underscores the urgent need to reassess and strengthen U.S. domestic policies to monitor and combat antisemitism effectively. While the United States has made significant strides in addressing antisemitism globally through the Office of the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism, there remains a critical gap in addressing antisemitism domestically. 

This event brought together experts in education, policy, and international affairs to explore the possibilities of enhancing local policies through education, advocacy, and increased engagement with universities and schools. Its focus was on providing greater funding and opportunities to these sectors to build a robust framework for combating antisemitism within the United States. This event was co-organized by the Program on Extremism and the Rabin Chair Forum.

Taking place on Wednesday, September 18th at 4:00 PM at The Lindner Family Commons, located on the sixth floor of the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University, 1957 E Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20052. Our distinguished panel of speakers included:

Opening remarks by Walter Reich, Yitzhak Rabin Memorial Professor of International Affairs at the Elliott School of International Affairs. 

• Michael J. Feuer, Dean and Professor, Graduate School of Education and Human Development, The George Washington University

• Scott B. Lasensky, Senior Advisor, U.S. State Department, Office of the Special Envoy To Monitor and Combat Antisemitism

• Hilary Miller, Antisemitism Researcher

• Omar Mohammed, Head of the Antisemitism Research Initiative at The GW Program on Extremism, moderated the discussion.
   

On September 18th, the Program on Extremism (PoE) at The George Washington University hosted an in-person event bringing experts in education, policy, and international affairs together, to explore the possibilities of enhancing local policies of antisemitism through education, advocacy, and increased engagement with universities and schools. With opening remarks from Walter Reich, Yitzhak Rabin Memorial Professor of International Affairs at the Elliott School of International Affairs, and Dr. Lorenzo Vidino, Director of the PoE. This event was led by Senior Fellow and Head of the Antisemitism Research Initiative at GW’s PoE, Dr. Omar Mohammed.Mohammed moderated a discussion among Dr. Scott B. Lasensky, Dr. Michael J. Feuer, and Hilary Miller. Dr. Scott B. Lasensky is a Senior Advisor for the U.S. Department of State’s Office of the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism. Dr. Michael J. Feur is the Dean and a professor from The George Washington University’s Graduate School of Education and Human Development. Hilary Miller is a Policy Analyst for the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, specializing in antisemitism and human rights. A special thank you to Walter Reich and Michael Feuer for allowing the PoE to host this event at the Elliott School of International Affairs at The George Washington University. The following is a summary of their remarks, on behalf of their personal opinions:

Dr. Lorenzo Vidino

PoE was established around ten years ago to study all forms of extremism. Researching extremism has brought awareness to the one common denominator between all of its forms: antisemitism. Antisemitism is an intersectional phenomenon that blends different ideologies together. All frameworks of extremist ideology embrace certain views, hatred, tropes, and biases against the Jewish faith and people. In particular, social media allows neo-Nazis, Islamists, and Hamas supporters to come together through their shared antisemitic ideologies. This has even led to neo-Nazis from the United States becoming ISIS members abroad. The events of October 7th have made the efforts to combat antisemitism more urgent than ever. The PoE’s Antisemitism Research Initiative, under the direction of Dr. Omar Mohammed, equips the public with strategies to counter antisemitism in a world where it continues to grow as a critical threat.  

Dr. Omar Mohammed

Being a refugee from Iraq, having a background in combating and witnessing terrorism, one cannot ignore the presence of the intersection between terrorism and antisemitism. The U.S. government lacks a domestic office focused on combating and monitoring antisemitism. Thus, making it increasingly difficult to navigate and effectively counter the broader issue through initiatives like education. Additionally, we have mainly focused on Holocaust education, but that is not enough alone. Therefore, understanding the mechanism of how antisemitism unfolds around the world, and the U.S., requires what is missing from online and offline platforms: rationality.

Dr. Scott B. Lasensky

The U.S. Department of State’s Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism was congressionally mandated twenty years ago to contribute to the effort of combating antisemitism. As antisemitism is both a foreign policy and domestic issue, there are blurred lines in policymaking and law enforcement responses that leaves this office confused with the nuances and specific efforts needed to combat this problem. As the Pew Research Center indicates, Jewish Americans feel a sense of discrimination they have not felt in decades. This tsunami of antisemitism needs to be addressed in a coordinated and cooperative manner; thus, leading to a proposal of twelve global guidelines, by the Special Envoy, to increase efforts to combat antisemitism around the world.

The global guidelines are a product of collective thinking on how to be proactive and assist other governments in their efforts. In a soft law approach, we can leverage governments to instill working policies in a world that has no rules or laws, but only norms, surrounding antisemitism and its behavior further than the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition. Thirty-six nations, and four regional governments have already endorsed this international framework that provides structure and guidance in the effort to combat antisemitism. Of the twelve policies, the first two are thematic and portray the way governments and public leadership should respond to antisemitism without politicizing it. Policies three through twelve are functional and are meant to adapt how countries operate through departments of education, justice, and public security. Regardless of the size of the Jewish community in a respective country, these guidelines are applicable to all governments and require more endorsements from nations with a stake. Overall, these global guidelines are meant to be a modest measure in combating antisemitism rather than solely bringing awareness.

With every agency being its own empire, it is difficult to ensure governments are enforcing these guidelines. However, they are a small step forward in doubling down on interagency collaboration. There is a silent story of the eighteen months prior to October 7th being a progressive period in the fight against antisemitism. There was room to do better then and it is urgent to do better now. With truth itself being under assault, it is more important, yet more difficult, to expand peoples’ courage to help address antisemitism and any other hatreds being weaponized.

Dr. Michael J. Feuer

As evidence is a necessary ingredient for policies and programs, a lot of time is spent trying to understand problems. With a tendency to spend more time on the diagnosis of problems, rather than the treatment plans, we are left with research expected to have a “recommendations” section. Collectively, educational institutions and government agencies should be thinking more about interventions and the “what, why, where, how, and when”. So, what is antisemitism?

Antisemitism has become an unfortunately relevant debate due to seriously tortured arguments and the struggle to separate antisemitism from anti-Zionism from anti-Judaism. The word itself is relatively new in the history of Jewish people. It was coined in 1879 by a left-leaning radical German who pivoted into a set of attitudes that translated into the hatred of Jews. Introducing the term ‘antisemitism’ created a more racial connotation of the Jewish people. This idea portraying Jews as ‘semites’ actually contributed to lots of confusion regarding their identity. Nevertheless, antisemitism invokes all kinds of memory and experience, further enforcing the need to come to a reasonable approximation to what it is. Thus, bringing us to the ‘why’ in the importance of combating antisemitism.

The Anti-Defamation League has reported a 337% increase of antisemitic incidents in the U.S. since October 7th. This stunning resuscitation of rhetoric and behavior against Jews is a clear rationale to engage with this topic. These periods of unrest usually turn to education and schools as its deep historical values influence the public to believe that educational refinement will make the world a better place. As schools believe in evidence, faculty and scholars have professional and moral obligations to confront discriminative narratives and those propagating them. Yes, educators and their institutions need to understand, cope with, and hopefully prevent the incurable disease of antisemitism; but, it will take more than schools to deal with the rhetorical and physical revival of Jew hatred. The “if you see something, say something” slogan is still relevant today. Although it is easier to give a sermon than make it operational, we must  press people to have the courage to confront and help others understand the historical context of the narratives they are spreading.

Hilary Miller

The deeply complicated issue of antisemitism has renewed in its intensity and frequency since the events of October 7th and attacks throughout the U.S. like the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting in 2018. The tolerance of Jewish hate in America can no longer be written in the bounds of the diasporic Jewish experience. Purveyors, promotors, and agitators of antisemitism are not just a threatening online presence, but are acting in the real world. Although  FBI statistics state a precipitous increase in anti-Jewish hate crimes in recent years, antisemitism has seemingly spread around the country without any serious or coordinated government response. The lack of coherence between the U.S.’s internal and external policy on combating antisemitism have left domestic efforts outdated and behind like-minded countries. As we reach historic levels of antisemitism globally, we must identify common practices and patterns among  national, regional, and international bodies.

Envoys are a 21st century innovation that involves a commissioner, representative, or focal point appointed by a governing body with an independent mandate to address the particular issues of antisemitism. Globally, envoys at all levels of government are using their mandates for good to confront this problem in several ways. They serve as liaisons between the Jewish community and the government; lead campaigners towards the adoption of the IHRA definition while pioneering strategies and national action plans; expose the problem of Jew hatred; incorporate the importance of Jewish life in their efforts; and mobilize together, in their contextual bounds, as a crossborder coalition of common actors. Possessing this independence allows an envoy to have the autonomy of being an unambiguous voice against Jewish hate. Although the government is responsible to protect the rights and safety of the Jewish community, envoys hold a soft power in foreign policy to mainstream tools provoking the conversation surrounding antisemitism to audiences which the government may not reach. Envoys are key instruments in advancing hate-combating strategies; however, they are only useful as the tools at their disposal.

U.S. government and educational administrators must adopt working groups, strategies, and awareness campaigns to strategically and productively respond to antisemitism. With their first priority being widespread acceptance of the IHRA definition, they should work to develop and implement police training on antisemitism, and create local data collection hubs and reporting mechanisms to provide a more refined, accurate reporting system. Furthermore, they must anchor the conversation to what constitutes Judaism and the Jewish people, including its organizing principles, history, ethnicity, and its contributions to diasporic life. The American effort to combat antisemitism at home is lacking, but not for lack of trying or caring.

A robust, meaningful fight against antisemitism cannot happen without acknowledging that anti-Israel and anti-Zionism is a facet of contemporary Jewish hate. Aside from the National Strategy to Combat Antisemitism, there must be a more in-depth proposed legislation suggesting the creation of an official administration position dedicated to combating antisemitism. Such legislation  should advise the President to domestically coordinate, oversee, and evaluate efforts across the federal government, review efforts and policies of more than two dozen federal agencies in combating antisemitism, brief congressional leaders every six months, and submit an annual report with recommendations to Congress on online antisemitism. The domestic strategy for combating antisemitism has room for growth and is growing, but it cannot be achieved without consensus on this issue.