On December 5, 2023, the US House of Representatives passed a resolution that strongly condemns antisemitism in the US and abroad. Indeed, several global antisemitic acts since October 7 are referenced, and the House rightfully “rejects all forms of terror, hate, discrimination, and harassment of members of the Jewish community.” However, the House also included and resolved one precarious clause in its denouncement of antisemitism: “The House of Representatives clearly and firmly states that anti-Zionism is antisemitism.” This clause is not only inaccurate, but also dangerous. It equates the hatred and discrimination of a people with the criticism of an extreme political movement. According to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), the definition of antisemitism is “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” This is the same definition that the House recognizes and cites in its resolution. Nowhere in this definition is Zionism, or Israel for that matter, mentioned. The IHRA even states that “manifestations [of antisemitism] might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” In other words, if one were to criticize Israel for its Jewishness, or conglomerate all Jews as pro-Israel, Zionist, or colonial settlers, this would be antisemitic. This also includes blaming or harming Jewish people for Israel’s atrocities. However, if you are criticizing Israel for its continued occupation, discrimination, and ethnic cleansing of Palestinian people and culture, as you would if any other country were to do so—and do so in a manner that recognizes the difference between Israel as a government and Jews as a people—then that is legitimate criticism. In July of this year, the House also passed a resolution claiming that Israel is “not a racist or apartheid state,” despite overwhelming evidence and scholarship stating otherwise. As you may be aware, millions across the US and the world have called upon their government officials for a permanent ceasefire of Israel’s bombardment of Gaza. A majority of them condemn the Hamas attack on October 7 while also recognizing that Israel’s siege is in violation of international law. Both actors have committed incomprehensible war crimes against civilians, but the US government’s uncritical support of Israel shields it from any international disciplinary actions. Israel has prevented critical humanitarian aid, indiscriminately bombed civilians and civilian infrastructure, and continues to use dehumanizing language in its genocide against Palestinians. In the same week as the House resolution, the US used its UN Security Council veto power to reject the United Nations’ ceasefire resolution in a 13-1-1 vote (the United Kingdom abstained). The resolution called for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, as well as a full and safe return of all hostages. By blocking this resolution, the US is showing the international community it does not care about civilian life, human rights, or the observance of international law.

In discussing this conflict, it is also apparent that many people use non-interchangeable terms as synonyms. Israel, Israeli, Jew, and Zionist are not synonyms, though intersectionalities do exist. Similarly, Arab, Palestinian, Muslim, Terrorist, and Hamas are not synonyms, and each describes something unique. However, from personal experience both in person and via online interactions, many people on both sides use arguments that equate one term with another, thus furthering islamophobia and antisemitism. Using non-synonymatic language such as this is how Israel and its supporters justify the killing of Palestinian civilians, with Israel’s president quoted as saying, “it is an entire nation out there that is responsible,” and how an Israeli Knesset member can publish an op-ed in an Israeli newspaper claiming that there is ‘no such thing as an innocent Gazan’. Using conflicting language is also how antisemitic acts against Jews, such as the instances referenced in the House’s resolution, occur, as well as xenophobic and islamophobic acts against Muslims, Arabs, and Palestinians in the US, such as the shooting of three Palestinian students in Vermont.

The House’s resolution is dangerous in that it quells legitimate criticisms of Israel’s injustices against Palestinians and allows Israel to continue enacting those injustices. If Congressional leaders truly care about their constituents, an overwhelming majority of whom support a ceasefire in Gaza, then they would discontinue shielding Israel of criticism, and with us, would demand a #CeasefireNow.

Colton Richman is a graduate student at American University studying human rights and international communications. He received a BA in Middle Eastern Studies and Arabic from Brigham Young University. He has participated in field research in both Israel and Palestine.