Opinion: State’s Antisemitism Report is Deeply Flawed

The following column appeared originally in the Amherst Bulletin on December 18, 2025.

A recent report issued by the Massachusetts Special Commission on Combating Antisemitism is a deeply flawed and dangerous document. Flawed for its conflation of Judaism with Zionism, and dangerous because it effectively puts the imprimatur of a liberal blue state on the Trump administration’s exploitation of antisemitism as the principal rationale for its war on free speech and academic freedom. The overarching message of the commission’s 73-page report is the “danger” to the Jewish community posed by pro-Palestine advocacy.

The report’s conflation of Zionism with Judaism is reflected in myriad ways, but I will highlight three here:
(1) Its use of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) “working definition” of “antisemitism”; (2) reliance on specific influential Jewish organizations, such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), as sources of data and testimony; and (3) numerous references to how Jews “hear” pro-Palestine slogans, with the implicit assumption that those cited speak for Jews in general.

The problem with the IHRA definition is with its so-called “examples” of antisemitism, and in particular, this one: “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”

A word of background: Zionism is a political doctrine that arose in the late 19th century that maintains that Jews are a “people” or “nation,” not a religious community, and that therefore they should have a state of their own. Jewish resistance to this narrative was the mainstream for decades, as evidenced by the Pittsburgh Platform of 1885, adopted by the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, one plank of which reads, in part: ” We consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a religious community, and therefore expect neither a return to Palestine… ” Was the governing body of Reform Judaism at the time guilty of antisemitism? One of the strongest opponents of British promulgation of the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which granted a “national home” to the Jewish people in Palestine (without consulting Palestine’s residents), was Sir Edward Montagu, the only Jewish member of the cabinet. He wrote: “I assume that [the declaration] means that Mahommedans and Christians are to make way for the Jews and that the Jews should be put in all positions of preference.” In other words, a “racist endeavor.” Was Sir Montagu an antisemite?

It’s true that by the middle of the 20th century, most Jewish organizations came to embrace
Zionism, and indeed became advocates for the State of Israel. But this leads us to issue (2) above.

While purporting to be official spokespeople of the American Jewish community, prominent Jewish organizations have been active advocates for Israeli interests for decades, with close ties to Israeli ministries. This is clear in the case of the ADL, whose recent “audit” of the rise of antisemitism since the Oct. 7 Hamas attack is cited throughout the commission’s report, but is riddled with equivocation between “Zionist” and “Jewish.”

Consider how this plays out on college campuses, including UMass. To quote Hillel International, “Israel is at the heart of Hillel’s work.” And while Hillel International’s “guidelines” profess that it “welcomes a diversity of student perspectives on Israel…”, it expressly prohibits partnering with or allowing speakers from organizations or individuals who deviate from Zionist doctrine.

As many a Jewish student from Students for Justice in Palestine, Jewish Voice for Peace, or myself as an anti-Zionist Jewish professor on campus, can attest, Hillel does not represent Jews in general on campus, but only those who toe the Zionist line.

The commission’s report attempts to address the issue of Zionism-Judaism conflation by appealing to how most Jews “… feel … Israel is an important part of their religious, ancestral, personal, and/or spiritual identity.” There are also plenty of references to how Jews (though here no claim to a majority) feel when they hear pro-Palestine slogans like “from the river to the sea” or “globalize the intifada,” or insults to “Zionists,” which they hear as a code word for “Jews.” This brings us to point (3).

Regarding the role of Zionism in Jewish identity for some, I can’t deny how they feel. But just as some Southern whites’ appeal to their cultural identity when defending Confederate war paraphernalia does not stop us from ethical criticism of its display, the same should go for Zionism and Jewish identity: justice trumps identity. It’s also important to note that pro-Palestinian statements are not problematic for non-Zionist Jews. Thus, just because a Jewish student experiences social costs for defending Israel does not mean those costs are incurred because of their Jewishness, which would be the basis for calling it antisemitism.

Finally, nowhere in the commission’s final report is there any acknowledgment of the violence and hate directed at pro-Palestine activists, mostly toward Arabs but also toward Jewish allies. And nowhere is there any acknowledgment of the extent of the horror against which pro-Palestine activists are protesting, a horror condemned as genocide by genocide scholars and human rights organizations.

I urge our state representatives and senators to reject this report and call it out for the blatantly political document that it is.

Joseph Levine, is a resident of Leverett, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at UMass Amherst and a member of the UMass Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine.