Mass. commission hearing sees widespread public opposition to adopting IHRA definition; many urge Jerusalem Declaration or anti‑racist framework

A Massachusetts Special Commission on Combatting Antisemitism hearing heard extensive public comment urging the body not to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, with many callers instead recommending the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism or an anti‑racist framework.

Caroline Light, a Jewish historian at Harvard, told the commission: "Please start by decoupling antisemitism from anti‑Zionism, and by connecting antisemitism to the wider web of oppressive systems that harm other minorities." She said the commission should "make space for the full range of Jewish voices" and recommended the Jerusalem Declaration as guidance.

Multiple speakers raised similar concerns. Jotam (Julian) Tubel, who identified himself as Israeli, argued the IHRA definition would "label legitimate criticism of the Israeli state as antisemitic," and said the Jerusalem Declaration better preserves political speech. Alan Wexelblatt, a lifelong Massachusetts resident, said the IHRA examples are "overly vague" and could encompass constitutionally protected educational or political speech. Several higher‑education faculty and a film festival programmer warned that programs or films critical of Israeli policy could be characterized as antisemitic under IHRA examples.

Commenters representing a range of Jewish viewpoints pressed the commission to avoid equating Zionism with Judaism. Rabbi Elaine Zacker said "criticizing Israel because we care about it is very different from those who do not believe Israel should even exist." Speakers including Maya Gonzalez and Ilana Wolcuff urged the commission to adopt an anti‑racist approach that treats antisemitism alongside Islamophobia and other forms of bigotry.

Several speakers spoke from personal or family histories of antisemitism while still opposing IHRA’s codification. Margalit Katzenbuchstein, a UMass Lowell student, described threats from neo‑Nazi ideologies and also called attention to humanitarian concerns in Gaza; she argued those events were driving antisemitism and urged stopping weapons sales to Israel. Ben Allen, an Emmanuel College professor, said IHRA’s examples could bar analogies he finds morally necessary.

Some commenters urged more robust protections for Jewish people and restrictions on use of state resources by organizations they said promote hate. Nina Rogoff proposed banning rental or use of state facilities by organizations that "incite hate and violence," citing a recent Paddle Boston event she said promoted antisemitic material; she said she had circulated a petition and contacted the governor and the Department of Conservation and Recreation.

Speakers repeatedly expressed concern about K–12 guidance and any reporting mechanisms that could chill classroom discussion. Several parents and educators urged the commission to follow the full legislative process and to be cautious about creating hotlines or disciplinary pathways that could label ordinary classroom discussion as antisemitic.

A small number of commenters supported the commission’s report or defended use of IHRA examples in educational settings. One speaker described being targeted online after advocating for multiple historical perspectives in schools and said she "support[s] the commission's report and issues of the IHRA definition."

The hearing record contains no formal vote or action taken by the commission during public comment. Commission members will weigh these testimonies as they consider final recommendations to the Legislature and state education authorities.