Rabbi Gewirtz’s Op-Ed for USA Today Network

New Jersey’s Jewish community has long believed that our state will take antisemitism seriously, name it clearly, and respond to it decisively. But a new report, stating that legislation in the New Jersey State Assembly to define antisemitism was shelved due to a fear that supporters could face primary challenges, has shaken that belief. Placing politics above the safety of hundreds of thousands of New Jerseyans represents a deeply troubling failure of leadership that should be immediately remedied.

Antisemitism has grown rampant in our state. A recent NJ.com special report titled “New Jersey Jews are living in fear” detailed the trend, citing a pattern of harassment and violence. The Anti-Defamation League noted that New Jersey had the highest number of antisemitic incidents per capita in the nation in 2024. Parents no longer take for granted that their children are secure in our synagogues, community centers and schools, not to speak of the public square. This is not excessive worry, but the reality to which we have somehow been asked to become accustomed.

At moments like this, clarity about what constitutes antisemitism is a necessity. The stalled legislation would have instructed law enforcement to take the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s — IHRA’s — working definition of antisemitism into account when determining if violations of state or federal anti-bias law have occurred, or whether criminal acts were motivated by antisemitism. That definition would also have been used for training public officials and responding to antisemitic incidents. Without such clarity, antisemitism thrives in the subjective evaluation of interested parties, frequently rebranded or rationalized and, too often, dismissed.

Those who oppose IHRA regularly argue that existing hate-crime statutes are sufficient. However, antisemitism frequently evades traditional frameworks. It appears not only as vandalism or violence, but as campaigns that single out Jews for collective blame, question their legitimacy as a people, or apply moral standards to Jewish self-determination that are not applied to anyone else. Critics also claim that adopting IHRA would limit free speech, but recognizing what constitutes antisemitism doesn’t stifle speech at all, it only makes clear what type of speech is hateful. Defining antisemitism does not create new law; it helps institutions recognize what they are already confronting.

Already in 2026 we’ve seen antisemitic violence and threats continue across the country: the remains of a synagogue destroyed in last year’s Los Angeles wildfires were vandalized; a New York City library hosting a Jewish exhibit was defaced; a Jewish father was assaulted in front of his family after his attacker shouted “I’m going to kill all the Jews”; and a Mississippi synagogue was torched in an arson attack. These are not isolated incidents, they are symptoms of a climate in which antisemitism is increasingly tolerated, minimized, or misunderstood. How much worse does it have to get before we act?

The more than 70% of members of the New Jersey State Assembly that cosponsored the IHRA legislation were denied the opportunity to vote on this important bill. Now the process begins again. Our representatives from across the Garden State must make it a priority to quickly prioritize passage of this legislation. Doing so would send a clear message that antisemitism will be taken seriously in this state — not selectively or politically, but consistently and courageously.

Jewish safety should never be a bargaining chip. Our leaders must show, through action, that New Jersey takes the safety of its Jewish citizens seriously.