A bill seeking to define antisemitism in state law passed through the North Carolina House swiftly amid nationwide protests over the Israel-Hamas War. The SHALOM Act, which seeks to codify the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism into state law, received almost unanimous support in the House. While the bill has bipartisan backing, some groups have raised concerns that it could inhibit criticism of Israel’s actions in the ongoing conflict. The bill now awaits approval by the state Senate and Democratic Governor Roy Cooper.
The IHRA definition of antisemitism includes examples such as denying Jewish people’s right to self-determination and applying double standards to Israel’s actions. Supporters of the bill argue that it could assist law enforcement agencies and prosecutors in identifying hate crimes based on antisemitism. House Speaker Tim Moore, the primary sponsor of the bill, emphasized that the measure has been in development since the October attacks in Israel and Gaza. The bill aims to address recent pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses in North Carolina, particularly at UNC-Chapel Hill, which have seen violence and arrests.
Several Jewish organizations have expressed support for the SHALOM Act, citing a rise in antisemitic incidents in North Carolina. These incidents include bullying of Jewish students, harassment of Jewish-owned businesses, and vandalism of a Holocaust memorial. The bill has garnered Democratic support in the legislature, with Rep. Caleb Rudow, a Jewish lawmaker, emphasizing the importance of protecting Jewish individuals while still allowing political dissent. However, a handful of Democrats voted against the bill, expressing concerns about potential speech limitations and calling for broader hate crimes legislation.
Opponents of the SHALOM Act, including a multifaith coalition, argue that the bill may not effectively protect Jewish people and could disproportionately impact Arab and Muslim communities protesting the Gaza war. They view the bill as a symbolic gesture that fails to address antisemitism seriously. Abby Lublin, from Carolina Jews for Justice, highlights the need for a more rigorous approach to combating antisemitism, stating that the bill could undermine essential liberties. Lela Ali, co-founder of Muslim Women For, voices concerns that the legislation may suppress the voices of Arab and Muslim communities.
The wave of bills seeking to define antisemitism in state laws across the country predates the Israel-Hamas conflict, with several states already enacting such measures. The SHALOM Act’s advancement in North Carolina mirrors efforts in other states to provide a legal framework for addressing antisemitism. Proponents argue that the bill is necessary to ensure the safety of Jewish individuals in public spaces, while opponents raise concerns about its potential impact on free speech and protests. The fate of the bill now hinges on the state Senate and Governor Cooper’s decision on whether to sign it into law.
