President Biden’s State of the Union address notably ignored America’s current tidal wave of antisemitism and failed to reference the May 2023 launch of the first ever National Strategy to Combat Antisemitism.
Doing otherwise would have forced an acknowledgement that to date that strategy has been utterly ineffective. More recent immediate responses have also been ineffective.
It’s high time for meaningful action against this scourge.
We do not need more congressional hearings on campus antisemitism, or further expressions of admiration for the “courage” of Jewish students who have not gone into hiding.
We certainly do not need additional statements of sympathy for a Jewish community stunned by the torrent of unchecked hatred and violence directed towards it.
What we need are effective responses. We need this hatred and violence to stop — on campuses and on the streets of America.
Within the Jewish community people often ask, as Rep. Kathy Manning did recently, what makes the current situation different from Germany in 1933 or 1938? Shouldn’t we recognize the ominous signs of where things appear to be headed?
We do worry, but we also note a significant difference. In Germany of the 1930s, the authorities were the problem, whereas in the United States today we are blessed with government and law enforcement officials who share our horror.
But that horror will only be meaningful if it translates into an effective response.
It is time — now — for the government, specifically the Departments of Justice and Education, to clarify the rights and obligations of university administrators and law enforcement officials to contain and reverse the violent antisemitic incitement masquerading as political speech, beginning with the rallies.
Jews across the country are confronted regularly with mass chants and public gatherings calling for “globalizing the intifada” and other thinly veiled threats of violent actions against Jews, against them.
These events are especially disturbing on campuses, where both members of the public and those affiliated with the university participate.
Students watch their faculty and fellow students celebrate and express support for the murderous and rapacious attacks of Hamas, a US-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization that proudly declares its genocidal intent to kill Jews.
These supporters of Hamas and opponents of Israel chant phrases including “From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will be Free.”
While some may claim this is a legitimate call for political independence for the Palestinians or even for the end of Israel, this phrase, in the context of the protesters’ express support for Hamas, is nothing short of a call for Jewish genocide.
Law enforcement and campus administrators rarely intervene.
Every day since Oct. 7, menacing anti-Israel protesters confidently do and say as they wish knowing there will be no police intervention until they physically attack someone.
The FBI has acknowledged with a resigned shrug that it operationally treats this inciteful speech as protected, while, thanks to increased scrutiny of police and their handling of public protest, law enforcement is effectively powerless to go beyond attempting to convince rallying crowds to avoid violence.
No doubt, there are critical challenges to both laying down and enforcing the law on public protest. Free speech is a core American value we share.
Suppression of protest — even when it is not legally protected speech, which many of these chants are not — has terrible optics and can blow up badly.
But the status quo is not viable.
Meeting these violently hateful antisemitic movements with silence or with toothless statements threatens not only the Jewish community but the very future of our country.
Government must not satisfy itself with condemnations and community education seminars on coexistence.
To stop this hate, the offices of civil rights at the Departments of Justice and Education must issue specific guidance to campuses and law enforcement that does three things: 1) defines the limits of free speech in the public square and on campus, 2) provides specific guidance on the rights and responsibilities to enforce those limits and 3) provides effective tools of enforcement and support for their use.
Anti-war protests are legitimate free speech. Opposition to the Gaza war is not per se antisemitism.
Whatever one’s opinion of the justice of the Gaza war, the images of civilians harmed in Gaza are horrific to all, and no one should be forbidden to peacefully protest them, either in sadness or anger.
If people, correctly or incorrectly, accuse Israel or Hamas of genocide, it is their right to do so even at the top of their lungs.
But there is no place for the encouragement of murder, whether it is Jews encouraging the murder of Palestinians or others encouraging the murder of Jews.
There is also no place for speech that includes intimidation and incitement of immediate violence.
But the ongoing near-daily rallies, often including masked protesters and menacing slogans, have prompted those visibly identified with Israel or the Jewish people to be immediately fearful for their physical safety.
Such speech is not protected anywhere, even before it escalates into actual violence or vandalism, especially on campuses, where legal requirements differ from most public places.
Addressing the situation at universities is both more essential and more limited than in the larger public square.
Places of learning must be open markets for the exchange of ideas, but universities have both the right and responsibility to impose behavioral policies that limit hateful speech and behavior.
Academic freedom is harmed by words and deeds that intimidate, silence debate and make those attacked feel unwelcome.
In addition, there is a legal obligation on universities to stop such rallies: As Title VI of the Civil Rights Act stipulates, educational institutions that receive federal funding, which is almost all public and private universities, must provide all students, including Jewish students, a school environment free from discrimination based on race, color or national origin, including shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics.
What is allowed on the street as free speech may not be allowed on campus.
On Dec. 5, the world watched in shock as the presidents of America’s leading universities testified before Congress, exhibiting cluelessness about their obligations and rights and the principles governing inciteful speech on campus and equivocating over whether calls for genocide of the Jews violate their school’s codes of conduct, their Title VI obligations or the boundaries of legitimate free speech.
They remain clueless today, three months later.
It is time that government provided more than sympathy. What will determine the difference between Germany 1933 and the United States in 2024 is not good intentions, but an effective and timely response.
Rabbi Moshe Hauer is executive vice president of the Orthodox Union.
This story originally appeared on NYPost
