Community Letter to Montgomery County, Maryland

Abel Amene

On July 12, 2022, the County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland, introduced a resolution titled “To define and address antisemitism.”¹ Spearheaded by Councilmember Andrew Friedson at the behest of local Zionist organizations such as the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington,² the resolution was sponsored by all members of the Council and placed on the consent agenda for July 26, 2022. The original language of the resolution, in no uncertain terms, proposed to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, “including the eleven contemporary examples, and [endorse] the use of the working definition as a framework to identify discrimination rooted in antisemitism and for discussions to address such discrimination.”

Due to community pressure, the County Council eventually removed the resolution from the consent agenda of its July 26 meeting. However, the body ultimately approved an amended version of the resolution on November 1, 2022.³ The final version “affirms” the IHRA definition as “a useful educational tool, among other resources”, rather than the original language which outright “adopts” the IHRA definition “as a framework to identify discrimination rooted in antisemitism.”⁴ While community pressure was not able to fully stop adoption of this resolution, grassroots organizing was able to delay passage and weaken the language of the resolution.

Among the efforts to pressure the County Council not to adopt this resolution was the below letter to the County Executive and members of the Council of Montgomery County, Maryland. The sign-on letter was authored and publicly circulated in late 2022 by organizers from Maryland 2 Palestine, a grassroots, Palestinian-led organization.⁵ It is re-published here, with permission, in order that it may serve to inspire organizers fighting the proliferation of the IHRA definition of antisemitism in municipal settings. Organizers are encouraged to emulate and adapt this letter for their local context.

The Maryland 2 Palestine letter effectively argues against the IHRA definition’s conflation of criticism of Israel with antisemitism, while also highlighting other problems ensuing from that conflation. The letter, written self-consciously in language meant to appeal to an audience of primarily liberal county officials, makes the case that fighting against antisemitism should be part of a larger struggle against all group hatred and discrimination, rather than the sort of exceptionalizing endeavor, assumed by the IHRA definition, which, while failing in fact to protect Jewish people, significantly harms Palestinians.

Dear Montgomery County Executive Elrich, Council President Albornoz, and Councilmembers Friedson, Glass, Hucker, Jawando, Katz, Navarro, Rice and Riemer:

On behalf of the undersigned community members and organizations, we are writing to express our opposition to the council’s adoption of the working definition of antisemitism used by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). We were extremely disappointed and alarmed to find out that such a controversial resolution was originally proposed for the Council’s July 26th meeting as a consent agenda item, without an opportunity for community members to share their concerns. 

The IHRA definition conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism, making it difficult to fight against real hate and bigotry, and violating constitutionally protected free speech. We are calling on the Council to firmly oppose the adoption of the IHRA definition, in order to protect the right to advocate for justice and safety for Palestinian communities, Jewish communities, and everyone impacted by racism, bigotry and discrimination. If the Council decides to proceed with considering adoption of the resolution, a public hearing must be scheduled prior to scheduling a vote in order to hear from all community members, particularly constituents who have been targeted or are likely to be targeted by the IHRA definition. 

The IHRA definition is part of a growing right-wing effort to censor Palestinians and human rights activists. When the Trump Administration issued an executive order in 2019 that allows the Department of Education to use the IHRA definition to censor free speech about Palestine on college campuses, there was intense criticism by a number of national human rights and civil liberties groups, including ADC, the ACLU, Center for Constitutional Rights, and the American Association of University Professors. Editorial boards of leading newspapers like The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, and The Washington Post also criticized attempts to incorporate the IHRA’s definition into law and government policy. The IHRA definition is not viewpoint neutral, infringes on constitutionally protected speech, and is a tool designed to censor Palestinians and human rights advocates, both in Montgomery County and around the world. We are also concerned about additional impacts of such censorship in public schools, such as within school curriculums.

We categorically oppose antisemitism, and it is exactly because of our deep commitment to collective liberation that we oppose the IHRA definition. Just in the past few months, we have seen a growing number of anti-semitic incidents in our local community (including antisemitic flyerings by far-right groups in Jewish neighborhoods), and it is imperative that our Council lead with the intentionality, diligence, and care this moment demands. Definitions do not keep our communities safe from the growing forces of antisemitism and white nationalism. This moment demands that we all come together because our struggles for justice are connected; divisive and controversial definitions undermine true safety and security, and will stifle free speech. 

In 2016 and 2021, the County adopted resolutions that reaffirmed its ongoing commitment to combat white supremacy, racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia, and other forms of bigotry. Importantly, the 2021 resolution includes an explicit commitment to civil liberties and free speech protections, while the IHRA definition violates constitutionally protected free speech. Both of these resolutions utilize an inclusive approach which does not single-out any particular group, and we are calling on the Council to follow this precedent of fighting against antisemitism as part of a larger struggle against all group hatred and discrimination. Exceptionalizing efforts to combat discrimination against one particular group risks further marginalizing other targeted groups, and undermines solidarity and cooperation.   

We reject the false choice between standing up against anti-Palestinian racism and antisemitism. Fighting against anti-Palestinian racism and antisemitism go hand in hand, and to mislead policymakers into this false choice threatens our collective safety. Rejecting IHRA is a necessary first step to stop right-wing racism and bigotry from being codified into law, harming our communities, and to reorient towards coherent anti-racist, anti-discriminatory policy.

By wrongfully conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism, the IHRA definition chills constitutionally protected speech. If the Council adopts the IHRA definition, there are constituents in Montgomery County who are very likely to be targeted because of their human rights activism or simply because they are Palestinians who are vocal in sharing their personal narrative. We are also concerned about the very real possibility that such a resolution could result in censorship in the county’s public schools, such as within school curriculums.We are calling on County Executive Elrich and Councilmembers to oppose adoption of the IHRA definition, and delay any vote on such a resolution until the Council holds a public hearing to hear input from all stakeholders, particularly constituents who have been or are likely to be targeted and censored by the IHRA definition.